Lord Warner: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the organisers of today's No Smoking Day, which on past evidence will mean that more than one million smokers will try to quit.
	There have been regular contact and meetings with the Republic Ireland and New York. Italy reduced its restrictions only in January, and we are watching developments. We shall take into account any evidence from international developments that is relevant to this country's situation. Our proposals for England are based on extensive public consultation, which will continue while leading up to the legislation promised in the Choosing Health White Paper.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have just enjoyed the most delicious lunch with the all-party smokers committee. Does the Minister share my views on the restaurateur quoted in the newspapers recently, who said, "This is my restaurant. If people do not wish to come to my restaurant, so be it. If they wish to come, and smoke a cigarette, equally so be it".

Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that data protection legislation prevents me from being able to reveal that.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, would the Minister care to indicate if the Government have any plans to ban the use of incense in places of public worship?

Lord Warner: My Lords, therapy-radiographer numbers have increased by 18 per cent between 1997 and 2003, which is significant. University training places for therapy radiographers have doubled—an increase of 108 per cent since 1997. Those increases mean that we are now starting to see more staff coming into service. In order to receive the money to purchase the new linear accelerators that I mentioned, trusts have to demonstrate that they have the staff to operate them.
	Just for good measure, the number of clinical oncologists has risen from 287 to 358 since 1997—a huge increase. The workforce in this area is expanding, although the Benches opposite find that difficult to accept.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have engaged in a substantial amount of research on organophosphates. Some of their effects are well established, but some studies on the long-term effects remain to be completed and the results of all the studies will need to be reviewed on their completion. I am advised that, to date, none of the completed studies has provided conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis that exposure to organophosphates is the cause of long-term ill-health reported by some sheep farmers.
	Therefore, in that sense, and in relation to long-term ill-health, the statement cited in the Question is an accurate reflection of the scientific evidence available at this time.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that it is some 13 years since I started asking questions about organophosphates? The House was very tolerant with me in all that time. Can he explain, if organophosphates are safe and they have been tested for their safety, efficacy and their quality, why farmers have been required since that time to wear space suits when they are dipping and to have a proficiency certificate to allow them to buy sheep dips? Why are all those precautions taken if they are safe?

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is ample neurological evidence to indicate that acute organophosphate intoxication can have serious, damaging effects upon the nervous system, particularly the peripheral nervous system? Is he satisfied that the current health and safety regulations are sufficiently stringent to protect farmers from such events?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile his response to the noble Countess, when the all-party group recommended that OPs should, for the moment, be removed from production and use and that the Government should consider compensating those who had been affected in the past? His Answer does not have any link with the group's recommendation.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, only four years ago, Zimbabwe was one of the most successful countries with the most sophisticated professional class in Africa. Adult literacy was 90 per cent and youth literacy 98 per cent. It also had large numbers of professional people, black and white—doctors, academics, teachers and lawyers. It was a net exporter of food—the breadbasket of southern Africa. Today, it imports grain from Zambia, grown by former Zimbabwean farmers. Its tobacco and beef once brought in 40 per cent of foreign currency. Now there has been a 90 per cent decline in, for example, the production of corn. GDP is down by 40 per cent per capita. Inflation is at over 300 per cent and still rising. Banks are failing and corruption is rampant in the leadership. According to the IMF, the economy has shrunk by 30 per cent in the five years to 2004. There is more than 70 per cent unemployment, and the UNDP estimates that 41 per cent of the 11 million population will starve unless food aid comes to fill the gap in the harvest.
	Zimbabwe once exported 20 per cent of the world's tobacco. Now, that figure is 4 per cent and falling. Almost all the 4,000 commercial farms which produced this revenue and invested in production provided schools, clinics, housing and land for their workers and sometimes homes for HIV-stricken children. These farms have been seized without compensation and in the most brutal fashion. The 310,000 farm workers were driven off the land and are disenfranchised, displaced, homeless and starving. The NGOs trying to help them were driven off.
	So, we have a once prosperous country whose economy has been destroyed by its own government and whose highly skilled professional and commercial classes, white and black, have largely been driven abroad. The most vulnerable people—the rural African population—have been dumped on former commercial farms, without seed, tools or land title, to attempt subsistence farming before being, in many cases, driven back to the reserves to allow the new "thievocracy" to move in as landed gentry. Forty per cent of these farms were, incidentally, bought from the present government after 1980—many as scrubland, which the government did not want in any case. Amazingly, most of the people of Zimbabwe, white and black, have patience, dignity, good humour and mutual respect, without which they could not have survived.
	I have described only the economic situation. Far worse is the remorseless destruction of the rule of law and of basic human rights practised by the ZANU-PF Government. Every one of the 57 opposition MPs has, at one time or another, been beaten, threatened and terrorised, and no action has been taken against the aggressors—Mugabe's war veterans and youth militia. They rape, pillage and murder while the police stand by, and they have just been given a major pay award, to encourage them to intimidate and disrupt any political opposition in the elections. There is nothing to choose between them and the Janjaweed.
	What of Zimbabwe and the outside world? The situation there is as much a human disaster as Darfur. Children are being routinely raped and starved in both countries. The disaster is as great as in the tsunami countries, but the world has done nothing. The government's flagrant disregard of the human rights there is as bad as the Serb treatment of Kosovo or the events in the Great Lakes. The differences are, first, that there are no journalists left in Zimbabwe to tell the world what is going on, whether on TV, radio or the press, and no media coverage other than that of the government. Next, because the African Union countries, and in particular Thabo Mbeki, have hitherto been more concerned with supporting and defending Mugabe, the liberation leader, than with admitting what he is doing to his own people, the AU has prevented any discussion of Zimbabwe in the UN.
	What of the UN? It has applied no sanctions. Mugabe was able to ensure, through the solid bloc vote of the African Union, that Zimbabwe was not even discussed at several meetings of the UN Commission for Human Rights—and of course he goes regularly to New York. Thanks to the AU, neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly ever discuss Zimbabwe, yet UNCHR is represented, though wholly inactive, in Zimbabwe. Until recently, the UN World Food Programme was feeding Mugabe's starving people, and will no doubt be required to do so again when Mugabe so wishes. The IMF and the World Bank will no longer lend to an economy in freefall.
	The SADC countries, who best know from the refugees flooding into their countries how dire the situation is, are intimidated into silence so that Mr Mbeki's "quiet diplomacy" can be left to bring about change. Incidentally, Mozambique, Zambia and Nigeria have enthusiastically encouraged Zimbabwe farmers to come to their countries. They recognise them as valuable Africans, committed to Africa, wherever the rule of law exists.
	What is to be done to help? The country still has well qualified, able people, who only ask for the restoration of the rule of law, free elections, a just settlement, and the chance to make the country work again: provided they are fairly treated. Those who have left will return, and it is vital that we should enable the diaspora to retain their skills. Those who have bravely stayed, black and white, would rebuild the economy, provided they receive compensation for the seizure of land—seizures widely regarded by the country's own courts as illegal—and investment from the IMF and World Bank to enable the economy to recover. There is still a remarkable potential in terms of skill and committed people, though our own treatment of asylum seekers is de-skilling people every day. We shall have much to answer for if we continue both to return asylum seekers against their will, despite the repeated warnings of the UNHCR in this country, to violence and sometimes torture, and to prevent skilled doctors, teachers—I hope Mr Trevor Phillips is listening—and others with professional skills from working.
	HMG have so far allowed themselves to be routed and manipulated by Mugabe and Mbeki: both forbidding them to do anything, on the grounds that they are a former colonial power. In the long years when we fought against UDI, however, and in the settlement over land at Lancaster House, we recognised our duty to do what we could to help Zimbabwe to achieve the same independence as Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, and the other African countries where there was once a British presence. I have not noticed the Prime Minister having any quarrel about benevolent intervention in Darfur and in southern Sudan; yet we held the mandate there. Clare Short, in a fateful and ill-judged letter, wrote to Mugabe that there would be no more money for land, since the incoming Labour Government were
	"without links to former colonial interests".
	We can and should operate with and through the UN and the EU, and still more with the IMF and the World Bank.
	The Government have been persuaded by Mr Mbeki, by SADC and by the AU that any British intervention would be counterproductive, even though our concern is for Zimbabwe. So what are HMG doing through international organisations? The UN is represented in Zimbabwe by the UNHCR. It has said nothing in the UN about the widespread violence, rape and torture. The UNDP is there, and in 2004 was said to have been negotiating for seven months, with a view to supporting and financing the general election process—voter education, electoral rolls, et cetera—and the UNDP representative said, "We want to contribute to the full, credible process. The elections should meet international standards". Nothing has happened; there are no UN observers, and 25 per cent of the electorate who fled overseas are denied the right to vote.
	The UN World Food Programme was to provide food and to monitor the distribution. Have HMG asked why the UN does not even discuss Zimbabwe, let alone act to protect the weak, as it is doing in Darfur and the Congo? Yet the UN is represented by a number of bodies there who could call for action. UNICEF has a representative in Harare and says that children as young as nine are caring for brothers, sisters and dying parents in child-headed households. Orphans are dropping out of school and turning to prostitution. UNAID estimates that there are 1.1 million AIDS orphans and predicts that, by 2015, more than 40 per cent of workers will have died of AIDS. The World Bank says that the number of children in primary schools has shrunk in four years by 21 per cent, and that 19 per cent of male teachers and 29 per cent of women teachers are HIV-positive. The AIDS epidemic is further spread by the routine rape of teenage girls in the militia camps.
	I ask the Government why we, as members of the UN, are active over the tsunami and in Darfur, yet condone a loud silence about the wickedness in Zimbabwe, where the UN is actually present. I find it difficult to understand, with so many UN agencies on the ground and presumably reporting, why the UN Secretary-General has said and done nothing to bring the situation in Zimbabwe before the UN and the world. The ICRC—the International Red Cross—is not much better. It had a regional meeting in Harare last October to prepare people for UN or AU peace missions. What has it done in and for Zimbabwe? I should very much like to know whether it has been visiting Mr Roy Bennett.
	Until now, the African Union has persistently opposed any British initiative on the grounds of our colonial past. They find no difficulty, however, in accepting generous help for their African army from the EU, where we are coupled with those admirable colonialists: the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the Belgians, and the Germans—who are still remembered with hatred by the Hereros in Namibia.
	However, the African Union Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights did carry out its own fact-finding mission in Zimbabwe in June 2002, and produced a report which was deeply critical of the repressive legislation, including POSA, the lack of oversight of the police, the attacks on the independence of the judiciary and on the freedom of the press, and they observed the party militia engaged in political violence. Their commission received evidence of arbitrary arrests and torture. Zimbabwe disregarded this report for nearly three years. This year it has been required by the AU to reply—largely because the report was leaked—and it has denounced the report.
	SADC too has found its efforts to ensure a free and fair election and to send in observers rebuffed. Mr Mugabe evidently believes that he can treat his fellow African leaders with contempt and still be protected by his mystical status—and it is a mystical status—as the great liberator. I hope and believe that the time is coming when Africa, with the rest of the world, will see him clearly as the architect, with a few greedy jackals to share the spoils, of the near-destruction of a country.
	I have seen corruption in the Congo and the collapse of a rich country, where there was no indigenous infrastructure left by the Belgians. In Zimbabwe, an even more corrupt and ruthless government have wantonly destroyed their own flourishing society; starved, beaten and killed large numbers of their own black people; ignored human rights—what are we to make of a regime which outlaws all charitable aid from outside for its starving and sick people?—and have ended up as a black hole in Africa, with no one but themselves to blame.
	Fortunately, the AU's belated recognition of the truth about ZANU-PF has coincided with a new, extremely important and potentially valuable African development. COSATU, the trades unions in South Africa, has begun to be concerned about the treatment of workers in Zimbabwe and has twice tried to visit that country to talk to the Zimbabwe trades unions. The regime, as stupid as it is vicious, made the mistake of expelling it twice with contumely. That has dented the image of Mugabe in South Africa and, for the first time, Mr Mbeki's determined support for him is being questioned.
	If COSATU and its brother unions in Africa and, indeed, in this country and the Commonwealth, were to encourage their governments to support the people of Zimbabwe, rather than the odious regime, that could materially change the situation for reasons that are not political but professional, pragmatic and fraternal. Other important African voices have been speaking for the people of Zimbabwe, not least those brave and a respected Archbishops, Pius Ncube of Bulawayo and Desmond Tutu.
	Now is the moment, when the G8 meets to discuss NePAD and the work of the Commission for Africa—I shall watch with interest to see whether the commission has at any stage addressed the problem of Zimbabwe—to make absolutely clear to the African countries that the time has come for them to use their power to restore good governance in Zimbabwe. They must be seen to do so, and through COSATU and SADC they have important levers. Unless they abandon the failed quiet diplomacy and recognise in the UN and in every other world forum the need for action, the G8 should declare a moratorium on all forms of aid and support under NePAD. The African countries cannot simultaneously reject our concern as colonialism on the grounds that Zimbabwe is an African issue and yet do nothing to end the incompetent and disastrous tyranny that is responsible.
	Africans, like us, respect those who respect themselves. Allowing a once successful country to stay failed does not even make common sense. The IMF and World Bank should use their influence to make clear that action in Zimbabwe is a sine qua non for any future aid anywhere in Africa. The Africans must recognise that the white people of Zimbabwe are also committed to their country and are valuable to it.
	Time is running out for Zimbabwe. It is disgraceful that while Mozambique and Iraq have provided overseas voting, the 25 per cent of the Zimbabwe electorate who fled abroad are denied it. A petition for free and fair elections has been organised in this country but, alas, it will have no effect. If we fail to act in every possible forum—the UN, the EU, the African Union, the G8 and even the Commonwealth—to enable Zimbabwe to restore itself, it will be a disgrace and no amount of debt-forgiving and politicians posing with happy black children will remove our guilt. We ignored ethnic cleansing in Matabeleland in the 1980s out of political correctness and appeasement and a fear of interfering. We must not see the death of a nation and be too lily-livered to act. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on having secured the debate and on a brilliant and extremely well-informed speech. It was an excellent opening to our debate.
	In October 2001 in Blackpool the Prime Minister made an important speech in the context of the formation of NePAD. He called for a partnership between Africa and the developed world. He said about the African position:
	"it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states to the activities of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
	There have been some positive developments in relations between the developed countries and some African countries, but Zimbabwe has grown much worse since that time, as the two previous speakers pointed out. There are no human rights and no rule of law; there is the rule of a dictator. Economically, industrially and politically, Zimbabwe is a ruin.
	The situation in Zimbabwe has been adequately described in this debate and in past debates. I want to talk about the effects of the situation there on neighbouring countries. The first point of which we should be conscious is the spread of AIDS. That has been encouraged by the effect of the poverty and unemployment in Zimbabwe, which has caused one member of each family in many cases to go abroad to earn the money with which food can be bought for his family to eat. That has led to a substantial increase in AIDS in southern Africa. Dr Roger Bate, who is the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, said last month:
	"Business as usual is no longer an option; if political stability is not returned to Zimbabwe soon and the refugee population doesn't go home, then all AIDS efforts in the region may become worthless".
	The consequences of that diaspora are not limited to AIDS. Botswana is suffering seriously from the influx of Zimbabwean refugees. A member of the Botswana Parliament said recently that the police and defence forces of that country carry out a ping-pong exercise: on day one they push back over the border to Zimbabwe the refugees who have arrived in great numbers; and on day two the refugees come back over the border.
	The plans for economic progress in SADC have been suffering. The proposals for southern African monetary union are stalled because of the economic effects of Zimbabwe. That is particularly hard on the smaller SADC countries. The economic board of the IMF is considering within the next five months whether Zimbabwe will be compelled to withdraw from the IMF.
	One African leader could resolve the problem in a short time: President Mbeki of South Africa, one of Africa's most important leaders. Sadly it seems that he has not been giving much of a lead. Even though he played a leading role in the conclusion of the three important African treaties calling for good governance, human rights and the rule of law, he has not followed through.
	Over the years he seems to have changed his attitude. Before the Zimbabwe elections of 2000 he called for as many observers as possible as soon as possible to go to Zimbabwe to ensure the fairness of the election. That sort of tone has not been followed up recently. He played a key role when the Abuja agreement was achieved in 2001. If carried through it could have had an important effect on solving the problems of Africa, but it was repudiated by Mr Mugabe.
	More recently the maxim of President Mbeki has been "quiet diplomacy", which he has claimed would lead to talks to resolve the dispute between Mugabe and the MDC. It is not clear to me how much quiet diplomacy there has been. There have been rumours and reports that talks are happening: they have been denied by the MDC. There have been rumours that talks are about to happen but they have not had any real place. This talk about quiet diplomacy seems to have enabled the impasse about Zimbabwe to be dragged on, so that none of the issues that would be involved in a free and fair election would be addressed.
	President Mbeki's attitude to the Zimbabwe problem is very different from his actions in other parts of Africa where he has been extremely active. He made 22 trips in other parts of the continent last year. He has foiled coups, he has ousted bad rulers and he has hosted talks between other leaders. He has sent South African troops to many countries as peacekeepers. He is regarded as Africa's leading statesman, ready to exert himself to resolve the difficult problems of Africa in any part of that continent. But he has not done it in Zimbabwe.
	After the latest Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, people close to the events told me that President Mbeki had lobbied the African members to call for Zimbabwe to be readmitted fully to the Commonwealth. Fortunately, that move was rejected.
	Mr Mbeki has said that Africa's future will depend on what Africans do and not what they say. The western world has already become sceptical, I believe, about the ability and the will of African countries to carry through their obligations under the treaties to which I have referred. When they made those treaties, they had the best of intentions, but they have not followed up those words. That situation could have serious consequences certainly for the southern part of Africa, but, I believe, for Africa as a whole.
	Now, it seems to me, Her Majesty's Government have an unparalleled opportunity to make up for their failure in the first two years after the Mugabe terror began. They failed to take any action in those two years, except to express various degrees of concern. HMG can now help to move forward the resolution of the problem of Zimbabwe.
	In a few months' time, we will have the presidency of the European Union. We have already, this year, the chair of the G8 countries. The Prime Minister has set up the Commission for Africa which will produce its report in a few days' time. We are still a leading member of the Commonwealth. If the Prime Minister does not follow up his fine words at Blackpool in the present conjuncture by doing something about Zimbabwe, people may say—to paraphrase the words of Gordon Brown—that there is nothing he could ever say which we could ever believe.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in seeking this short debate today is greatly appreciated. It gives some of us an opportunity to raise issues of grave concern about continuing developments in Zimbabwe. Although I freely admit that we in this House follow developments in that country, there are few of us as well informed as is the noble Baroness about the horrendously repulsive regime under which far too many of its people have to exist. We heard about that today in the speech made by the noble Baroness, which I shall be pleased to read tomorrow, and which we now have on the record of this House.
	I wish to raise the case of Mr Roy Bennett, Member of Parliament, and the situation in which he finds himself in his own country. In a debate in the Zimbabwe Parliament in May last year, Mr Bennett, a Member of Parliament belonging to the Movement for Democratic Change, pushed the Minister of Justice, Mr Chinamasa, to the ground. In turn, Mr Bennett was kicked by ZANU-PF MP, Mr Mutasa. No one was hurt in the scuffle.
	Mr Bennett had been the target of consistent harassment and abuse over a long period. I can well understand that he was at the end of his tether as a result of the abuse levied by the Minister of Justice at that time. For all that, I do not condone the action of Mr Bennett, but neither do I condone the procedure that followed.
	In spite of Mr Bennett apologising to the Speaker and to the Minister of Justice—which he did on two occasions in Parliament—a privileges committee was established that comprised a majority of ZANU-PF members, with a government supporter in the chair.
	The privileges committee, rather than carrying out the established function to preserve and serve the purpose of contempt of parliamentary proceedings, thereby maintaining the dignity and decorum of Parliament, sentenced Mr Bennett to 15 months hard labour, of which three months were to be suspended. The Zimbabwe Parliament endorsed the Committee's decision along strict, party-political lines.
	In my view, the members of the Zimbabwe Parliament set aside their role as parliamentarians. They acted as a court of law and imposed a sentence that is unprecedented in international parliamentary practice. I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. Mr Bennett was given no right of appeal or recourse to a court of law. Had he been able to take legal action, I have no doubt that a typical sentence for common assault would have been a fine.
	Mr Bennett's location in prison was kept from his family and legal representatives who searched the prisons throughout the area. When he was finally located,
	"he was found to have been stripped, and clothed in a soiled prison garment that exposed his genitalia and buttocks".
	Those are not my words. I quote from the report of the Bar Council and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. That is surely a flagrant and degrading maltreatment of a prisoner. It is incumbent on the Zimbabwe Government to condemn the prison authorities and to bring an immediate end to maltreatment of prisoners, whoever they may be.
	A few weeks ago I raised this matter with the British branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I found its former chairman, Mr John Austin MP, and its current chairman, Miss Ann Clwyd MP, willingly and actively pursuing the issue with the Zimbabwe authorities through the IPU Committee on Human Rights in Geneva. I welcome the action that they have taken and are taking.
	Perhaps it is a result of those representations that although the Speaker of Zimbabwe initially barred consideration of Parliament's verdict and sentence by a court of law, a first hearing took place last October when all parties concerned accepted the matter was urgent. But that was nearly six months ago and the judge has still not rendered his ruling.
	The refusal to rule on appeals and release on bail, not only currently prevents Mr Bennett from exercising his parliamentary mandate and deprives his constituents of representation in the Zimbabwe Parliament, but also prevents him from standing as a candidate in this month's elections in that country. However, since I entered this Chamber about one hour ago, I have received the news that Mr Bennett is not being allowed to stand in the Zimbabwe elections this month. But the chink of light is that his courageous wife, Heather, has taken on the flag of honour. She has accepted the challenge. God give her health and strength to carry it out. I wish her well in all that she is doing.
	I reiterate that physical violence can play no part in the democratic process. I believe that Mr Bennett's sentence is disproportionate to his offence, and I know that it has not been tested by the normal judicial process. I know, too, that his treatment in prison gives rise to the gravest concern.
	I give all credit to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for taking action in support of the rule of law and against the violation of human rights in this case, as it does in others. What representations have the Government made to Zimbabwe to insist on the compliance of decent standards of justice and fairness? I wonder whether the High Commissioner has been invited to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss those issues. Have representations been made through our law officers, or through a third party such as the South African Government or the International Red Cross? Surely all those avenues are open to us.
	I invite the Minister to give an indication of what the Government have done, or what they intend doing. I look forward to her response.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend Lady Park won this balloted debate. She is without doubt a true friend of Zimbabwe. This is not the first debate that she has initiated, and I hope that it will not be the last. Somebody has to keep Zimbabwe on the agenda when the Government do not.
	In the past few years, our debates have shown how the political, economic and social situation in Zimbabwe has continued to deteriorate rapidly. Those conditions are being exacerbated by poor rainfall this year, and the outlook for the country remains very bleak indeed.
	However, there is some good news. The Mugabe-led regime has become even more isolated in recent months. Former allies in the form of Namibia, Malaysia and Libya have all distanced themselves recently following political changes in their own countries. China alone remains committed to support the regime and is doing so right now with some foreign assistance, such as military equipment, much of it being delivered to,
	"help the military deal with any crisis following the elections in March",
	as the Herald newspaper so delicately put it on 22 February.
	In the past six months, the AU has criticised the Zimbabwean Government for the first time. The SADC leaders have adopted standards with which elections in the region should comply, and South Africa has started, in a small way, to open up the debate on Zimbabwe. COSATU and the SACP—both important components of the ANC—have been very open in their criticism.
	Despite this, the Mugabe government have not moved significantly to open up space for democratic activity. Some minor modifications have been made to the way in which the 31 March parliamentary elections will be held, such as, voting on one day, the use of visible ink on fingers to identify persons who have voted, and no mobile voting stations. But apart from those changes, none of the major underlying principles for a free and fair election have been met.
	There is still no freedom of speech or association. The media is still tightly controlled and the independent press banned or cowed. Recently, the remainder of the international press corps in Harare has been forced to flee the country despite being Zimbabwean citizens. The whole electoral process is tightly controlled and managed by security agencies, the military and the police.
	The voters' roll is incomplete and contains massive distortions. At least half the population will be denied the vote by being excluded by administrative dictum, local unconstitutional regulations relating to voting rights or physical absence from the country, and a ban on postal or foreign balloting.
	There is widespread political violence and intimidation. The police and the courts are being used to intimidate the opposition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, reminded us. There are 400 prosecutions of MDC activists taking place at present.
	Funding from foreign sources is banned and local sources are intimidated by the security agencies and state threats. Food is very scarce. It is tightly controlled by the state and used as a political weapon against the opposition. MDC members are denied food from state-controlled agencies which have a state monopoly—the grain marketing board, for example. ZANU is threatening that communities which vote MDC—we know that they are the threat—will not receive food or assistance. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Mohadi, has said in speeches in his constituency, "Are you hungry? Vote ZANU and be fed".
	Simple activities, such as distribution of leaflets and putting up posters are made illegal. Regulations make it an offence to put a poster on a fence or pole without the approval in writing of the owner.
	Last week President Mbeki of South Africa, who is unquestionably pro-ZANU-PF, said that he expected the Zimbabwean elections to be in accordance with SADC protocols and declared "free and fair". What does the Minister understand that to mean? Is it a cover for his inability to promote justice and his continued support for a corrupt, dictatorial regime?
	Today SADC has stated that its observers will have "real power" in the electoral process. I, see, too, that Mugabe has barred the parliamentary forum of that association from monitoring the election. Does that mean that there will be a process whereby electoral rigging will be stopped? Without a proper, independently verified process, the elections will not be free and fair and must be universally condemned.
	Despite claims that the economy has stopped declining—after a record six years of continuous annual decline in GDP with the economic output falling from US$8.4 billion in 1997 to US$4.8 billion last year—the economy will shrink again this year. The main reasons for that are continued falls in agricultural output owing to drought and very poor plantings with very little support in the way of inputs. Mining has been stopped in its tracks by new threats, and changes to the fiscal and foreign exchange regime and industry and tourism continue to shrink.
	While the reserve bank projects 3 to 5 per cent growth, and the Minister of Finance projects 5 per cent growth, private sector economists are projecting at least 3 per cent decline in economic output in 2005.
	The effect on the society of seven years of decline in the economy has been catastrophic. Life expectancy has fallen to 33 years from 59 in 1990. Incomes have been halved. Half the adult population has fled the country as economic refugees, many of them taking their AIDS infection with them to other countries. AIDS, sadly, has become Zimbabwe's major export. Of course, there are the other consequences that my noble friend Lord Blaker mentioned.
	The number of jobs has fallen by more than 40 per cent. Death rates have risen exponentially, and now stand at three times the historical average. The national population is declining at the rate of up to 5 per cent per annum. At least half the population needs food subsidies to maintain their families. The UN estimates that 5.8 million Zimbabweans out of an estimated population of 11 million need assistance to get through the coming winter.
	In the 2003-04 season, Mugabe claimed Zimbabwe produced 2.8 million tonnes of grain—some 800,000 tonnes more than was needed for domestic consumption. It is now known that total cereal production did not reach 1 million tonnes. Despite Mugabe's claims, the GMB has been importing steadily throughout the past year and imports are now reaching close to estimated daily consumption needs.
	Even by its own admission, crop plantings in 2004-05 season have been very poor. Some state estimates put them as low as 20 per cent of target. Whatever the areas planted, the present position is that half the country in the south and east has had a very poor, wet season and now faces a long dry spell with limited surface water and virtually no food or grazing for livestock.
	In the rest of the country, conditions are only marginally better. Plantings are small and the potential yields are well below historical averages. As a consequence, it is now expected that cereal production—all grains except wheat—will fall to well below last year's crop, which was already below the 50 per cent threshold.
	Mugabe has banned most NGOs from operating in the field to give the ruling party a free hand in the rural areas, and has severely restricted the activities of the UN and the WFP. For this reason, the whole infrastructure built up over several years by the donor community—led by the USA and the UK—has been dismantled and is now in no position to help in any new crisis. Even the feeding schemes in primary schools by some NGOs have been closed down, leaving hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children to their fate and the weather.
	Tobacco production is predicted to fall to 50,000 tonnes from 250,000 tonnes at its peak; milk production and oilseed production is down by half; horticulture is also down after holding its own for some years because of its semi-industrial character. Farm invasions and arbitrary confiscation of private assets is continuing. Food prices have risen across the board and are now among the highest in the region.
	High sustained levels of inflation with controlled interest rates have destroyed savings. The average pensioner is now a pauper and totally dependent on the generosity of others and children overseas. I know someone who has saved all his life and whose policies mature next month. The total combined paid-up value will be $12, that is all now. This shows what a criminal regime can do to the savings of a nation in a very short space of time.
	In Zimbabwe, there are an estimated 2.3 million HIV-infected adults—up from 2 million, which was the latest figure in our debate on 28 January 2004—only 5,000 of whom receive any form of treatment. AIDS deaths are running at 3,000 a week. The impact of this on the social and economic situation is difficult to compute. There have been epidemics of tuberculosis, malaria and pneumonia, in a situation where the hospitals are without doctors, nurses or drugs. Even food and cleaning materials are in short supply.
	In the school sector, the cost of schooling has risen dramatically as state funding has declined and the services of the Ministry of Education have deteriorated. More than half of all girls of school-going age are not in school, and the standard of education in functioning schools has declined. Pass rates as low as 3 per cent in some schools are now recorded. Illiteracy rates are rising after reaching an all-time low of 5 per cent in the heydays after independence in 1985.
	The average Zimbabwean faces a nightmare situation. There are 1 million orphans, no jobs, declining buying power of salaries and shortages of just about everything. Going to a hospital is a death sentence unless one can afford expensive private facilities.
	As we all know, this situation can be ascribed to one man and a few cronies—that man being Robert Mugabe. But we need to look at history. In 1976, a similar situation was occurring in Rhodesia. There was a log jam; there was one person blocking the road forward. That person moved because South Africa moved.
	There must be much more pressure on Mr Mbeki. Sadly, Mr Mbeki has not fulfilled any of our expectations. His quiet diplomacy has failed. He is a broken reed who has caused quite deliberate economic decline and problems for the whole of southern Africa. As my noble friend Lady Park said, we need to do more in the international forums, in the UN and in the IMF.
	The people of Zimbabwe now want a policy of "one man, one vote" in a free and fair election. We gave them that in 1980. We must help to give them that again now and then support whatever government come to power.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on securing the debate.
	The important points about current conditions in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the elections have already been made very forcefully, particularly by the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I would only add that a strong and co-ordinated statement from the South African Development Corporation, the EU and the US on pre-election abuses and conditions in Zimbabwe at the moment, and the IMF/World Bank consequences, would be timely and is certainly called for. Furthermore, even at this very late stage, international organisations could most usefully provide equipment such as videocams, cell phones, radios and transport, and broadcasts of independent election information, in the vernacular, in Shona and Ndbele, with the aim of being able to refute any post-election statements about the freedom and fairness of the forthcoming election.
	I should like speak briefly on what Zimbabwe might look like after the election and what avenues might be open to the international community to assist democracy and development. There seems to be little doubt that Mr Mugabe will win the election with a sizeable majority. The pressing question is what kind of majority will President Mugabe aim for and what might be the consequences.
	The significance of the majority rests on various political developments in Zimbabwe in the past year or so. ZANU-PF is showing signs of discontent and various factions within the party are jockeying for succession. Two of these factions are led by former ZANU-PF government members. Various analysts predict that if President Mugabe wins a simple majority, his authority might be weakened, at least one faction would be strengthened and the party might be restructured to purge it of enemies. However, this kind of result would make it easier for the international community—especially SADC—to pronounce the election reasonably fair.
	If President Mugabe is intent on a two-thirds majority, he would have to negotiate with factions within ZANU-PF on issues to do with succession. I think that at this stage the MDC would be unlikely to retain almost any kind of credibility after such a crushing defeat. This in turn could lead to weak and unstable government in a falling economy.
	Of course, it is also possible that the election abuses and faction fighting could become so intense that the elections are stalled. This, in the view of one expert at least, could well provoke mass action by the MDC, trade unions and civil society organisations.
	Zimbabwe appears to be moving towards ever more dangerous waters and the threat of a political and humanitarian disaster moves ever nearer. Inflation is, I think, 100 per cent greater this year than it was last year; corruption is at an all time high, as has been said by previous speakers; investment is decreasing month by month; and food shortages in the rural areas are reaching acute levels. The diaspora continues, especially in South Africa, which itself faces a growth in jobless people and a not too distant election in which President Mbeki's promises of improvement will be tested.
	What can be achieved in this unpromising context and where can support for a move towards democracy be found? One hopeful change, again referred to by previous speakers, is that the immensely influential COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, is now openly critical of President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy approach, and other South African institutions such as the South African Institute of International Affairs—which, incidentally, is headed up by President Mbeki's brother—the South African Communist Party, the NGO Coalition and, very importantly, the South African Council of Churches, have echoed COSATU's concerns.
	These are significant events and co-ordinated internal pressure in the context of the South African elections might successfully persuade South Africa to take a stronger role in Zimbabwe. Previously stalwart African state supporters of President Mugabe's policies, including Botswana, Ghana and Senegal, are questioning the conditions for a free and fair election.
	A post-election economic recovery programme funded by the international community could be—in theory at least, and possibly in practice—agreed between the South African and Zimbabwean trades unions and other locally based groups. There could be rather more serious sanctions against business backers of Mugabe's regime. Sanctions stronger than the current ones on travel by Members of the Zimbabwean Government should be announced by the EU and the EU Contenu Treaty, which has a strong civil society element, should be brought to the fore.
	There could be greater efforts to publish and disseminate the true extent of election abuses in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe has proved extremely adept at "packaging" his policies and even neighbouring countries are not widely aware of the extent of torture and other violations in Zimbabwe. A recent publication, The Zimbabwean, which is a weekly newspaper, will go some way towards redressing this balance.
	Like other speakers, I refuse to believe that nothing can be done. I do not accept the current conditions in Zimbabwe. I am fairly certain that there will be a great deal of political and civil unrest in the near future and no one can deny that the world has been given ample warning of what is to come. If we are sincere in believing that abuses on the scale of those in Zimbabwe now are unacceptable, we must act.
	This will require a more determined and co-ordinated approach based on political will. I therefore ask the Minister what will be the Government's response to the election and what plans are in hand to intervene to prevent conflict in Zimbabwe and perhaps in the southern Africa region more generally?

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for securing this timely debate and I congratulate her on her tireless endeavours on behalf of so many people who have suffered for far too long in the tragic situation in Zimbabwe.
	I wish to focus on two issues: the Zimbabwe Government's policies towards NGOs and the plight of the churches.
	On 23 November last year the Zimbabwean Parliament passed the NGO Bill which will have very serious implications for non-governmental organisations. For example, it will require them to register with a newly appointed commission, involving potential unprecedented interference and control and is a yet further attempt by the ZANU-PF elite to eliminate any threats to its stranglehold on power.
	The Government will now be able to use far-reaching powers to close down any NGO that does not support the regime or which is seen to threaten the regime by monitoring and reporting human rights abuses. David Coltart, an opposition MP, says that the NGO Bill is,
	"one of the worst attacks on the independence of the church".
	Sebastian Bakare, an Anglican Bishop, says,
	"it is putting the church in a situation where it will be incapacitated. I think it's the beginning of the persecution of the church. We're heading for tough times".
	Furthermore, other bodies reporting on political violence and engaging in voter education—almost entirely funded from abroad—will be prevented from operating. With less information on domestic human rights and governance, the Government who have already suppressed the independent print and broadcast media will become even less accountable to their people.
	This act has still not been signed by the president, but the delay in the granting of presidential assent does not mean that there are not already serious problems for NGOs.
	For example, it was reported on 24 February that Zimbabwe is already considering the deregistration of about 30 NGOs which it alleged had misused millions of dollars they had received from foreign donors last year. Zimbabwe's National Association of NGOs points out that the existing Private Voluntary Organisations Act—which dates from the era of Rhodesian UDI under Ian Smith—has no provision for state supervision of NGO accounts. The fear is that the Government are busy planning to implement provisions in the new NGO Bill while it is still awaiting President Mugabe's signature for enactment.
	These plans to stifle dissent through wide-ranging powers of regulation and the prohibition on foreign funding will have serious repercussions for organisations working on some of the most critical support projects. Zimbabwe has one of the worst AIDS epidemics in the world and it is estimated that it has so far left behind an nearly 1 million AIDS orphans. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
	Worst affected are children in rural areas, where their plight is made worse through shortages of drugs, food and other resources. Food distribution and AIDS relief projects which are at present almost entirely foreign funded will almost certainly have to close down. That will have disastrous consequences for the poorest people. It is sadly timely that we are discussing these issues just two days before the Commission for Africa reports.
	The equivocal attitude of many international relief agencies appears to have left them with the worst of all possible worlds. Perhaps this may serve as a lesson for the future. For far too long many people have refused to point a finger at the power lust and corruption of the ZANU-PF regime and identify it as the fundamental cause of the crisis in Zimbabwe for fear that it might jeopardise their operations in the country. As a result the crisis was allowed to grow unchecked by censure from international and regional bodies. But it has done those bodies little good. The regime—running out of scapegoats—has now chosen to portray aid and relief organisations as the agents of western imperialism.
	After a concerted campaign by President Mugabe the UN World Food Programme, World Vision, Christian Care, Lutheran Development Services and several other donors have all had to cut back their work in Zimbabwe. Until recently the Government claimed Zimbabwe had sufficient home-grown maize to feed its 11.5 million people. Last year President Mugabe told British television:
	"We are not hungry. Why foist this food on us? We don't want to be choked. We have enough".
	President Mugabe cannot accept food aid from the same western governments he accuses of trying to "recolonise" his country. But for propaganda reasons, he desperately needs to show the world that his seizure of farms has led to a food surplus rather than to food shortages in what could and should be a land of plenty.
	But in January, maize meal again disappeared from shops across the country. The much-promised food surplus has come to nothing and desperate shoppers have been forced to buy imported rice or flour at prices they cannot afford. Thousands of once productive fields throughout the country have turned brown and are overgrown with weeds.
	Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo says the Government,
	"want to control the food and politicise it, they'd rather kill people for the sake of power".
	He travels widely ministering to his flock in Matabeleland, a region long marginalised by the Government in Harare, and tells us from first-hand experience:
	"There is continuing starvation in certain parts in the country and food is being used as a political tool in certain areas".
	Archbishop Ncube has been a shining example of courage and principle in speaking out on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe. But sadly too many leaders on the continent—church leaders and political leaders—have seen their solidarity as being with the government of Zimbabwe, corrupt and bent on maintaining their grip on power at any price. Speaking in Cape Town recently, the archbishop said President Mbeki had failed to give leadership on the issue of Zimbabwe—a point that has been made by other noble Lords—and that he would be booed in the streets of Harare if he were to ask the ordinary people what they feel about his so-called quiet, but in effect silent, diplomacy.
	Will the Minister tell us specifically what is being done through the FCO's Global Opportunities Fund—especially the economic governance and sustainable development programmes—to engage South Africa as an ally rather than an obstacle in working towards a resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe? Access to justice, freedom of expression, the rule of law and combating torture all lie at the heart of those programmes, as do strengthening the role of civil society and promoting an independent media. These are the very issues on which the people of Zimbabwe long to hear the government of South Africa speak out.
	That great hero of South Africa's own struggle for freedom and democracy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has not been afraid to speak out and to be a voice for the voiceless of Zimbabwe. His stern condemnation of the brutal excesses of the Government there led President Mugabe to describe him as,
	"an angry, evil and embittered little bishop".
	Many people are disappointed that the bishops of the Anglican Church have not done more to distance themselves from the Anglican Bishop of Harare—Nolbert Kunonga—in view of his outrageous pronouncements of support for President Mugabe. He is one of the most vociferous cheerleaders for the regime and has mocked those who oppose President Mugabe as "puppets of the West". As a reward Bishop Kunonga was given a farm in one of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural districts and he evicted more than 50 black workers with their families to make way for his own staff. His actions seriously damage the international reputation of Anglicanism.
	Meanwhile, church leaders and members who criticise the Government face intimidation, arrest, detention and—in the case of foreigners—deportation. As one Methodist minister said:
	"The state operates in a sinister way, not with any open or direct threats, but it certainly gives those who are proclaiming truth and justice cause to pause. We have to think before we make any statements because we know that the state, at the appropriate point, will take further action".
	For example, in a move apparently intended to put pressure on the church to desist from criticising the ZANU-PF regime, the Government charged the Catholic diocese of Hwange and the Catholic Mater Dei hospital in Bulawayo with exchanging foreign currency illegally.
	Last October Christians Together for Justice and Peace, an informal, ecumenical group of church leaders based in Bulawayo, convened a meeting of local pastors and other church leaders at the local Roman Catholic cathedral. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the impact of the NGO Bill on the work of the churches, and to decide a joint Christian response.
	However, the CIO, the state security police who regularly monitor church services, took the leaders to the central police station saying the meeting was banned under the provisions of the Public Order and Security Act. I suggest that it is deeply disturbing that church leaders should have been banned effectively from considering the implications of a new piece of legislation for their Christian work.
	Will Her Majesty's Government recognise that there is an urgent need for clear, authoritative and high-profile statements rebutting the propaganda of the Government of Zimbabwe? EU sanctions, renewed again only last month and directed only at named members of the Zimbabwe regime, are misleadingly blamed for bringing economic hardship to the population of Zimbabwe. Silence can all too easily be perceived as agreement and President Mugabe is a master at misleading and manipulating international opinion. We have a moral duty to stand up to his misrepresentations and to those of his remaining allies in the region.
	Some claim that by speaking out we play into President Mugabe's hands, but to be dissuaded, from setting the record straight on matters of fact and principle, through fear of how he might respond, simply allows him to set the agenda. We only need to remember the way he has portrayed the international agencies that have been providing humanitarian relief for millions of his countrymen. He is a man without honour, without scruples; he will distort what is said and he wants to present himself as an untarnished hero of the liberation struggle.
	I ask the Minister what strictures we impose, alone or together with our fellow members of the EU, on those countries that repeatedly use their vote at the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights to thwart action being taken against Zimbabwe for abuse of human rights. I hope the Minister will reassure us that there is frank and honest engagement with Africa's regional leaders on the issue of Zimbabwe. Our presidencies of the EU and the G8 mean that we have a unique opportunity to bring clarity and focus to the thinking of the region on these issues.
	Any negotiations on debt restructuring or developmental aid programmes need to be firmly tied to African engagement on good governance and genuine protection of human rights. Perhaps then the people of Zimbabwe will experience a genuine improvement in the quality of their lives and be able to share in the liberation for which they have struggled for so long.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall come on to that. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, may be aware, in the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy, which has been described by several noble Lords, a vacuum has been left in which the Chinese are intervening in a big way. They have economic interests in preserving the Mugabe regime, which would certainly compel them to take such a stand in the Security Council. The Russians, of course, are vehemently opposed to the idea of international interventions along the lines that the noble Lord suggested, where it is primarily to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. That is not yet, unfortunately, part of customary international law.
	In Zimbabwe, the people cannot act as they did in Beirut or Kiev because of the curfews, laws inhibiting freedom of expression or assembly and the arbitrary arrests of opposition candidates which have been mentioned—particularly including Godfrey Chimombe in Shamva last month and Joel Mugariri in Bindura. Your Lordships will be aware of the case of Hilda Mafudze, the gutsy candidate for Manyame, who reported that 11 of her young helpers were set upon by ZANU-PF thugs, and the police refused to act.
	I wonder what it takes to convince the neighbours that the will of the people is being subverted. Journalists were not allowed to ask any questions after the press conference that Condoleezza Rice had with the South African Foreign Minister last week, but the Secretary of State's spokesman said afterwards that monitors should be allowed to observe the process.
	Yet the regime has shown its true colours, as has been said, by arresting and threatening three journalists last month, forcing them into exile, frightening another into hiding; by closing down the Weekly Times as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has pointed out—the fourth paper to have its licence revoked under the infamous Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; by the draconian process in the NGO Bill, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; by the Public Order and Security Act, also mentioned by the noble Baroness; the refusal of entry, twice, to delegations from the South African trade union organisation COSATU, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside; and by the exclusion of the SADC parliamentary forum from the list of those who will allowed to attend the elections.
	There will be an official SADC delegation attending, under the leadership of the South African Minister for Home Affairs. The South African Parliament and the ANC have also each been invited to send a team. I suggest it would be useful if those with direct knowledge of the situation in Zimbabwe would submit written evidence to those delegations, particularly to SADC, in the hope that they might publish it together with their report.
	The assessment of whether an election is free and fair is not just a matter of what happens in the few days leading up to the poll. In the case of Zimbabwe, it ought to include an examination of the presidential elections of 2002 and of the parliamentary elections of June 2000, and the changes in the law which, as has been said, have severely limited freedom of expression and assembly since then, breaking the rules of the SADC election protocol which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
	The examination should look at the numerous reports by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Churches, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Lawyers for Human Rights; and of course it should cover the many reports in the South African media and on SW Radio Africa, which broadcasts to the people of Zimbabwe, revealing the situation that is concealed from them by their own leaders.
	Any assessment should also review the findings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It has documented the case of 32 MPs who have suffered torture, arbitrary detention and severe harassment. I particularly hope that our parliamentary colleagues from SADC countries who are selected for the election observation teams will study the reports and resolutions on Zimbabwe which I understand the IPU will be sending them, and that they will try to meet the MPs who have suffered persecution in Zimbabwe and deal with that matter in their own reports.
	The international community's responsibility for preventing the crisis in Zimbabwe dragging down the rest of southern Africa, as has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and others, is a huge one. The Commission for Africa is about to launch an agenda for eradicating poverty and accelerating Africa's progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. Yet the economy is in freefall, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The arrears of payments to the International Monetary Fund amount to $306 million, even though Mugabe has found $240 million to buy Chinese military vehicles and weaponry which were delivered at the end of February. That is another answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. There is an increasing military relationship between Zimbabwe and China which they have an economic interest in maintaining.
	I wonder whether the Government would ask the IMF to conduct a desk study of the possible steps that could be taken to reverse the trends if conditions allowed, in time for the G8 Gleneagles summit in July. NePAD, the Sachs plan to accelerate the MDGs, and the US Millennium Challenge Fund are all based on the idea that more aid will go to countries which can demonstrate their commitment to good governance, the rule of law and human rights. So countries such as Zimbabwe will not qualify; but when they do get back on the reform track, they ought to be able to make ultra rapid progress by reason of their previous experience and well-educated population.
	So, picking up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, there should be a framework plan for resuscitating the economy with numbers attached to it, so that the international community can spring into action when the time comes, so that people can see what the benefits would be of a return to democracy.
	Lastly, we are dismayed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, by the policy of the Home Office of shipping failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe even in the cases where their membership of the MDC has been clearly demonstrated. The UNHCR, having kept the situation under review since the violence of March 2002, concluded that,
	"there has been no detectable abatement of political violence against the opposition, particularly the MDC. Instances of violence have continued to occur and ... members real or perceived of the MDC . . . continue to be the target of human rights violations . . . The same applies to other persons who, because of their background, might be considered to be critical of the current regime".
	In the light of that assessment, the UNHCR advises that the suspension of forced removals should continue. I do not go quite as far as that because I know that some who apply for asylum in this country are members of the ZANU/PF or even, in one or two cases, of the CIO. But the Zimbabwe Association has documented 138 cases of Zimbabweans detained since 16 November, and two who had Malawi documentation, who have been detained for over a year. It says that many of the persons detained were poorly represented in the first instance. I can certainly confirm that from my own knowledge of individual cases. Because of the restrictions on legal aid, it is extremely difficult to find representatives willing to act where a fresh application is warranted on the basis of the evidence that comes to light after appeal rights have been exhausted.
	So I would appeal to the Government to consider allowing those who have failed in their asylum applications but who have good documentary proof that they were active members of the opposition to lodge fresh applications with the necessary legal aid.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said, Britain has the unique opportunity as president of the G8, having put Africa at the top of the list of priorities for the summit at Gleneagles this July, to require all African states, and particularly those that are members of SADC, to act on Zimbabwe. Quiet diplomacy has failed and we must now call on the rest of Africa to deliver on the commitments of the Harare Declaration, to "work with renewed vigour" for,
	"democracy, democratic processes and institutions . . . the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and just and honest government".
	Those are the things that the people of Zimbabwe want, and we must help Africa to deliver them.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, once again I congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on returning to this vital issue. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Caithness were quite right to say that she is a true friend of Zimbabwe.
	My noble friend Lady Park alluded to the lack of engagement on the part of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Will Her Majesty's Government make representations to Mr Annan about this? The plight of the people of Zimbabwe should not be left off the UN agenda.
	I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said concerning the harm that will be done to humanitarian relief and human rights monitoring as A result of the NGO legislation in Zimbabwe. Major international NGOs must be persuaded that they are not operating in a politically neutral country. The Government should communicate that fact to agencies supported by DfID so that matters of governance and democracy are not excluded from the agenda of those organisation. Their public statements can carry enormous weight internationally.
	The noble Baroness's comments on the reluctance of the Anglican Bishops to face up to this horrific situation within their own communion are well made. I am very sorry that there are no Bishops here for this important debate. The Church is not reluctant to prescribe solutions to crises elsewhere in the world. I hope that they will attend to their scandalous brother, the Bishop of Harare.
	My noble friend Lord Blaker made important points about the impact of the crisis on the economies of the entire region. Will Her Majesty's Government engage in dialogue with the IMF to ensure that the crisis is seen in this context and that Zimbabwe's neighbours are warned of the full consequences of their failure to help bring about a resolution? Many in the United Nations, especially in the African bloc, have said that the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal one, that it does not involve the rest of the world. But I agree with what my noble friend said, and I agreed entirely with my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary when he said:
	"I don't believe it is internal. I think what we are seeing now is a crisis which is spreading beyond the borders of Zimbabwe. Refugees are pouring into Botswana, in the north part of South Africa, and the humanitarian crisis is not one that is going to be specifically restricted to Zimbabwe".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, drew the House's attention to the shocking case of Roy Bennett. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, gave a masterly overview of what might happen after the election in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party have continued to commit serious human rights abuses since their last so-called electoral victory in 2002. The systematic persecution of civil society activists and political rivals has left the nation, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, in a shambles. Sadly, there is little reason to suppose that the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe will not resemble those of the past, as a mockery of democratic rights and governance.
	Yesterday I received a communication from the acting deputy representative of the UNCHR. Since the March 2002 elections, he writes,
	"There has been no detectable abatement of political violence against the opposition, particularly the MDC. Indeed, it would seem that instances of violence have continued to occur and that members and supporters – real or perceived – of the MDC or any other opposition party reportedly continue to be the target of human rights violations, including ill-treatment, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. The same applies to other persons who, because of their background, might otherwise be considered to be critical of the current regime".
	Under Mugabe's leadership, the nation has undergone massive economic regression, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. According to the Government of Zimbabwe's own statistics, inflation now stands at 133 per cent, having reached a peak of 622 per cent in January last year. Astonishingly, the governor of the central bank, Gideon Gono, who was unwisely allowed into this country last year on a fundraising visit, forecasts that inflation will be below 10 per cent next year. The negative trend in the economy has caused rises in disease, food insecurity and a general feeling of unease among the population.
	I am appalled that it was possible for ZANU-PF fundraisers to visit this country, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will pay urgent attention to tracking down the donors and conduits of these funds, and to cutting off the fountainhead of ZANU-PF's electoral bribery and patronage.
	Furthermore, the Government have shown very little vigour in pursuing funds that should be frozen under the EU-targeted sanctions. This is an area where they can show they mean business, if indeed they do. What does this say about the Government's commitment to Africa? Are we working to improve conditions there, or are we attempting, as we have done so often in the past, to look like we are?
	An election is looming, described by Mugabe, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, as an anti-Blair election. The Zimbabwean Government have stepped up their campaign of fear. The Zimbabwean, a magazine published by refugees living in this country, reports that ZANU-PF youth militias have been ordered to "crush the opposition". During elections in 2000 and 2002, these militias committed many human rights abuses, which have been thoroughly documented by numerous NGOs and governments alike.
	It will be impossible, however, to expose abuses in this election. As my noble friend Lady Park said, all foreign journalists have been kicked out. Without any unbiased reporting, the elections can proceed in any manner the government see fit. SADC election observers are supposed to be granted access to the country 90 days before the election, yet they are not due to depart for Zimbabwe until next Monday, barely two weeks ahead of polling day. The bribery and intimidation of the electorate have all been taking place for months now. The SADC Parliamentary Forum, the only African observer group to issue a scathing verdict on the 2002 elections, has this time been banned from sending a mission.
	Both President Mbeki and Foreign Affairs Minister Zuma of South Africa are on the record as saying that they believe the Zimbabwean election will be free and fair. Earlier this year the South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad said:
	"There is no reason to believe that there is anyone who would want to infringe on the rights of the Zimbabwean people to express their will fully at these elections".
	And yet these are the very people to whom the leaders at the G8 Gleneagles summit are expected to entrust leadership of Africa's renaissance through good governance and respect for human rights.
	G8 Ministers ought to be pressed on how they are using the leverage of their meeting. At the very least, they should be charged with the creation of a report detailing what has been achieved in Zimbabwe since the previous G8 meetings. The report ought to include an honest assessment of press freedom, electoral processes and human rights in general. There is no reason for the G8, EU, UK or anyone else to increase aid to southern Africa unless governments of the region can show that they are serious about ensuring reforms towards good governance in Zimbabwe.
	The Prime Minister has made Africa a priority issue. He has created the Commission for Africa, in addition to putting the easing of misery there high on the agenda for the upcoming G8 summit and the British EU presidency. I welcome these ambitions. So far, there have been too many fine words and resolutions and not enough evidence of engagement.
	I have doubts whether the Africa Commission will be able to create meaningful reform in southern Africa. One of its members is President Mkapa of Tanzania, the African leader favoured with more British aid than any other country—most of it, I must say, well spent. On 17 February, President Mkapa made statements exonerating Mugabe for any wrongdoing, saying
	"I don't see Zimbabwe as an illustration of bad governance. I don't buy it".
	Mkapa also claimed that the opposition MDC was somehow responsible for the violence in Zimbabwe. Such statements can only give comfort to Mugabe and help drag Africa down. Her Majesty's Government must denounce such outrageous statements loudly and clearly.
	President Mkapa and SADC also opposed the recently extended EU sanctions on 95 members of the Mugabe government, and used the opportunity to support Mugabe's land redistribution policy, despite the fact that Mugabe himself has recently admitted its failure as much of the land has been left idle.
	The sanctions currently in place focus predominantly on travel restrictions on those in the regime. They have been in place for three years, but have not done enough to deter widespread government abuses. Zimbabwean refugees living in this country tell me that, without broader scope, these sanctions cannot achieve their desired ends.
	The international community must take a stronger stance with Robert Mugabe and SADC. The UK is well-placed to spearhead this, given our central roles in the EU, the Commonwealth and G8. We must transfer the responsibility from Mugabe alone to the rest of the African states as well. It is their responsibility to foster good governance, as they accept through the creation of SADC, NePAD and the African Union.
	Now is not the time to fall silent. We must not allow Mugabe quietly to steal yet another Zimbabwean election. We will be seen as utterly hypocritical by the millions of voiceless in Africa if we stand alongside those fighting for fair elections in Ukraine, only to watch Mugabe get away with murder—literally. Together with the people of Zimbabwe, who deserve freedom and prosperity, Britain can help set the agenda. We must use all the leverage and influence at our disposal to gain support for progress from the international community.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate, which has been learned, reflective and at times passionate. I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on having introduced this important debate and on her commitment to helping the people of Zimbabwe. The timing of the debate, coming only three weeks before parliamentary elections, is important. These are difficult times for the people of Zimbabwe, as many noble Lords have so eloquently described. They have been ill served by a regime determined to hold onto power and unconcerned with the suffering that its policies cause.
	I hope that in the time allotted to me I shall be a able to answer many of the questions put by noble Lords in the body of my contribution. If I do not respond to any outstanding questions, I shall of course write to noble Lords.
	I had the opportunity last year to provide a background of the situation in Zimbabwe at a similar debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. It is unnecessary to go over that ground again, as the contributions this afternoon served to underline the depth of understanding in this House of the crisis in Zimbabwe. But I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords, that Zimbabwe has attracted, and continues to attract, the closest attention of this Government. Our intentions have always been clear: we want to see a return to a democratically accountable government that represents and respects human rights and the rule of law.
	However, this is not just about the UK and what we want. The EU, the Commonwealth and other international partners have all expressed their outrage in the past at a regime that continues to show contempt both for the rule of law and for international opinion. As an example of the broad-based international concern about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe, I refer noble Lords to the recent decision by the European Union, reached, as it must, in unanimity, to extend the targeted measures against Mugabe's regime for a further 12 months from 21 February. We were, as a Government, strong advocates of that action.
	Parliamentary elections are due on 31 March. Several noble Lords have raised deep concerns about the process of the elections and their credibility. We continue to have grave reservations about the prospects of them being free and fair—in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Some concessions and cosmetic changes have been made to bring the electoral environment into line with the guidelines on the staging of democratic elections that the Southern African Development Community—SADC—drew up, a point to which my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside referred. Zimbabwe has signed up to those guidelines.
	The guidelines prescribe political tolerance and fair access of all parties to the media. We know that genuine press freedom does not exist in Zimbabwe, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us. Laws have been passed ensuring government control over the past two years. Much of the private media has been closed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. Dissenting voices have been arrested or intimidated, and the public media is largely partisan. To make a concession to SADC, legislation was passed allowing the audio-visual media to cover opposition publicity. That is a minor step forward and should be extended to the written press. But the regime's natural reluctance to tolerate free speech was demonstrated when as recently as 11 February, the authorities launched a crackdown on three of the last remaining correspondents for foreign media organisations, one a British citizen. Regrettably, they have all now left Zimbabwe.
	Freedom to campaign and associate without fear of retribution is enshrined in the SADC principles. Freedom of association has simply not been a reality over the past two years, as the authorities have continued to employ legislation to make it difficult for the opposition to campaign or meet their constituents. Again, despite assertions from Harare that violence will not be tolerated during the election, there have been notable recent examples of MDC candidates and supporters being targeted by the ZANU-PF youth militia.
	Recent moves to bring the youth militia under the wing of the military, to award all security personnel a 1,400 per cent pay rise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, reminded us—and to recall all those who have retired from the military in the past 10 years, simply heighten the sense of fear. Relaxing some conditions in the few weeks immediately before the election, while necessary, does not detract from the actions of the past two years.
	An electoral commission has been established as required by SADC principles. But it was established too late and given no office space, funds or staff to do the job that it is meant to in managing the elections. Observers also have concerns about the voters roll, with thousands of alleged "ghost voters" contained in the lists, as well as names missing. Access to the roll has been made very difficult.
	On broader issues, concern has been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside about the Government's policy to return to Zimbabwe failed asylum seekers. As my honourable friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said in another place, we have simply brought,
	"our policy on returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers into line with that of every other country".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04; col. 78WS.]
	The decision to resume enforced returns was linked to the mounting number of false claims encouraged by the suspension on returns. Let me be absolutely clear that that change in policy does not reflect any change in our categoric opposition to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. I also assure the House that every applicant is considered on his or her individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees 1951 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, what I can say to noble Lords is that if noble Lords have any evidence that those people who have been returned have been abused in any way, we would be very happy to look at that evidence, if noble Lords present it to us.
	If an applicant meets the definition of a refugee—and each case is looked at very carefully, including the history and associations in Zimbabwe of the person in the case—they will be granted asylum.
	On the subject of humanitarian assistance, life is difficult for all Zimbabweans. Our concern is not, as Mugabe would have it, based solely on the problems experienced by white farmers. In fact, many more black Zimbabweans have suffered acutely from a desperate economy and a botched so-called land reform process, which has destroyed the commercial agricultural sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us, and handed stolen land to regime cronies, not to the needy workers as Mugabe has claimed. As I said in the debate last year, we are trying to pick up the pieces from the havoc Mugabe has wrought on his country.
	I assure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who spoke at length on the issue of food shortages, that our policy continues in remaining committed to helping those most in need. Through DfID, we have contributed £71 million for humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe since the food crisis emerged in September 2001, and we continue to provide support to more than 1.5 million of the poorest people through international NGOs and the UN. That funds food aid.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if I thanked everyone individually, I should have to make another speech and that, I am afraid, is not allowed. So I shall merely say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who has spoken; noble Lords have contrived to produce all the different facets of the problems of Zimbabwe.
	I would like to leave with the Minister two questions on which I should be happy to receive written replies. First, how much money have we succeed, under those famous EU sanctions, in confiscating from ZANU-PF's little funds abroad? Secondly, when the EU, yet again, blocked the discussion in the General Assembly, have we said to it, "No more business, no more help, no more anything, until you allow Zimbabwe to be discussed"?
	I thank everyone and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Lord Dykes: rose to call attention to the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the Council of the European Union from 1 July 2005; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude for the chance of raising this subject this afternoon. I hope that the debate will be as fulfilling and gripping as the previous one. I am most grateful to all noble Lords for taking part. I believe that the UK presidency period from 1 July this year until the end of the year will provide special opportunities for this country and this government to seize the moment in, unfortunately, a dauntingly growing European Union agenda.
	Indeed, this is one of the problems facing everyone in the European Community from now on. The inevitably lengthening agenda and the natural growth in the inputs—often understandably demanding of the 10 new states, although they are a small total addition to gross domestic product—means more and more work by the relevant presidency period national administrations and civil servants and their foreign departments in the Council of Ministers to keep up with all the items on this lengthy list.
	The external threat of terrorism, for ever prevalent, has also added hugely to the overall workload. For example, yesterday and today, regarding the stability and growth pact, extremely heavy and deep agendas prevail. That is why I personally felt that it was a good idea to launch this large debate well before 1 July. There is much to think about.
	In the spirit of the work being done, I first pay the warmest of tributes to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for their robust energy in tackling huge agendas with the tiniest of the EU's administrative apparatus—apart from Malta, I suppose. They are only nearly half-way through an onerous period and have juggled skilfully with a rolling and sometimes elusive agenda. It is an impressive country indeed, when someone jokingly said that the informal definition of real poverty there was owning two small Mercedes. I believe it is the 11th time that they have handled the presidency, which, when it first started, was a small agenda by present day standards.
	This secular growth in the items to be considered by an ever-growing European Union reflects also the facts of the EU coming more into the world outside, due not only to emergencies, such as 9/11 and after, but also to a deeper relationship arising with both the United States of America and with all other continents, including Asia and China—although perhaps not enough with South America, for some reason; but elsewhere, the growth is spectacular.
	Luxembourg is rightly attaching high priority to the mid-term review of the Lisbon process for greater Union efficiency and productivity, competitiveness and flexible open markets. I note that the UK Government will pick up these cudgels enthusiastically later this year, armed with the Commission's orientation report. On page 9, paragraph 19 of the update document last September, Her Majesty's Government emphasised that since 70 per cent of modern European Union total gross domestic product is now represented by services of all kinds, rather than the old manufacturing or extractive activities, this must be a priority for opening up markets, with the services legislation needed still, since only 20 per cent—would one believe—of trade between member states is so represented.
	Perhaps the Minister can confirm that I am right to say that the European Commission has had another look at the services directive legislation, due to various points that have been put by the member states and, therefore, that we must wait a little longer for the text.
	Huge work is still needed in the financial sector. That is also a practical reason why the Government should not delay any longer in joining an increasingly successful and internationally relevant euro. The Government will say that their hands are full with many other more pressing matters. But the single currency is already turning into a stupendous and unbeatable piece of fundamental deregulation. It should bring tears of gratitude to the most flinty of Hayekian fanatics that this deregulation is the best of all. But they do not see it that way in this country and elsewhere, for some bizarre reason.
	However, as President Chirac reminded us all during his official visit to London on 18 November last year, and to this House where the ceremony took place at the end of the day, to celebrate the entente cordiale anniversary, an economically more dynamic Union must go hand in hand with Europe's traditional attachment to, I quote his words, "its own social model". I believe that the public here needs more guidance on the huge advantages of the Rhineland model of socio-economic balance, which tragically the USA does not possess in any shape or form.
	In her kind reply to me of 21 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the Minister, emphasised Her Majesty's Government's strong support for the Lisbon "mark two", post-Wim Kok review phase, of widening and deepening the single market,
	"through full implementation of existing liberalisation measures, as well as new initiatives".
	I am still waiting for the Government to follow up by energetic efforts to tackle the residual examples of cartel and restrictive practices that remain in the UK and cite such examples to us. We can then get away from the wonderful fantasy notion that prevails in some of the consumer comics called newspapers in Britain, that we do not have any such naughty practices; only wicked continental countries, of course, have them.
	Meanwhile, I congratulate the present Government on offering us last month Command Paper 6450 on prospects for the EU this year and their many plans for the presidency from 1 July onwards.
	Apart from the sad examples of bizarre shyness over the euro, the European monetary system and the need for the Government to promote the EU constitution hard—presumably after the election—I contrast the positive tone of most of the ideas in the White Paper with the reactionary, curmudgeonly, chauvinistic, narrow-minded and plain hostile notions contained in many such White Papers in the still painfully remembered period of Tory governments, eight years ago and more. Yes, we still remember the dark period of recent British political history. Manifestly, the UK has returned, under the Prime Minister's enthusiastic banner, to being European-friendly at last. I am grateful for that, as I hope other noble Lords are.
	I also very much congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his enlightened approach, despite an horrendous personal schedule of meetings worldwide. In his introduction to the White Paper, Jack Straw expressed the hope that such reports would,
	"stimulate the closer and deeper involvement of all parliamentarians as well as the British public in European Union affairs".
	The huge practical difficulty is, of course, the sheer length and complexity of this agenda. So I shall focus on only a few key priorities today to give other noble Lords the chance to speak, and I hope that it will not be too late in the day.
	There will be some 40-plus Council meetings, including the informal meetings at senior level, plus action plan meetings and the rest, and so a hectic time will be had in the British presidency after 1 July.
	From the continuation of the multi-annual strategic programme, concluding, as is intended, with the second presidency period next year under Finland, to the new burdens of the security and weapons of mass destruction strategy now being clamped on an already overcrowded agenda, I have to ask the Minister who is to reply today whether he is confident that every priority will be taken forward. I genuinely have the impression that the "super troika" system is now getting smoother and smoother as more national officials in member states are drafted into the processes. Even Justus Lipsius is apparently getting more used to the continuity work that is needed. But it would be frustrating if disutilities started to creep in to cause the inevitable postponement of some fairly urgent agendas. I believe that one such example is the need for the deepest of common agricultural policy reforms. The Council is always hinting at that but never really properly delivers it.
	The abandonment—literally—of the current extravagant and anti-third-world support system of farm produce subvention in Europe is surely unavoidable now, even if the details will take time to work out. This has to be done anyway to accommodate the needs of many of the 10 new members who will require genuine support, perhaps beyond the initial transitional period. At the same time, the US and Japan should also modernise and reduce their own outrageously expensive systems of farm support, which are often worse than the European examples. That is rarely mentioned in the British press.
	Lest people in the United Kingdom naively think that we are exempt from such radical prescriptions, we, too, must accept alternative land use rather than endless overproduction. I was pleased to see the recent enthusiasm of farmers for the new ecology measures of the European Commission.
	The main themes of the European presidency are, as we know, the fairly bland-sounding notions of security, prosperity and sustainability—not exactly an election manifesto phrase. But they are all more complicated than we may think at first glance. Paragraph 4 on page 3 of the White Paper assures us that climate change will be kept high on the agenda. Perhaps I may ask the Minister and the Government whether the US is now beginning to show a more responsible attitude to this and related matters, pressed by the European Union, I hope.
	But just in case that notion makes us feel smug, perhaps I may also ask the Minister, when he replies, to remind us just how many opt-outs we in Britain now have in the current Union compared with other leading, large-population countries. I hope that the answer is "not too many", when apparently we are so keen to say how crucial—and, ironically, absolutely necessary—integration and qualified majority voting are in all single market legislative processes.
	Personally, I welcome very much the proposal for a European Grand Committee, referred to in the White Paper, to bring all the scrutiny activities into a modern setting in our two Houses—subject, of course, to the elaboration of further details and the ideas of the two Houses. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the European Committee here today. After all, this is mainly a parliamentary matter, with the Government presumably supporting from behind.
	Turning to the constitution and the present Bill, I hope that HMG will take strenuous steps, even to some extent, in our forthcoming national election campaign—would I be reasonable to expect something at least?—to rebut and refute some of the rubbish put forward by the anti-EU Neanderthal element in United Kingdom society, and some of the newspapers, which I shall not mention now, about the effects of this remarkable and comprehensive new treaty. It is, after all, the codification and co-ordination of all the previous treaties, right back to the Treaty of Rome, and it also reaches into some important new areas. I suppose that in many ways some of its proposals are very modest and cautious.
	So we know that the new constitution is not a "national" one in any way. It does not undermine us in this sovereign British state. We know that it does not give the power to levy new taxes on the UK; we know that our existing opt-outs are not affected; and, of course, we know that the monarchy is totally unscathed by all those suggestions.
	Sometimes I so admire the more modern attitudes of some other major countries towards these areas. After all, Spain, too, is an ancient kingdom with 1,000 years of fascinating history—indeed, in effect, is that not true of all of us in Europe? But it was good to see the King and Queen of Spain voting in the referendum polling booth in Madrid on 20 February.
	In the raging arguments about the European Union's budget and the financial perspectives for 2007-13, perhaps I may also make the point that the wrangling between 1 per cent, as proposed by the EU five or six, including ourselves, and 1.14 per cent, as proposed by the Commission—some people still stay with the old 1.27 per cent idea—is perhaps less crucial than a sensible compromise agreement when the Commission is grappling with a larger spread of financial commitments. As usual, those commitments have come about as a result of the increasing demands imposed by the burdens of new policy, often put forward first by—guess who?—yes, the member governments themselves.
	The security and WMD programme is a good example of that kind of thing. Meanwhile, real tangible cuts in excessive farm support would, in a very few years, provide in part money for alternative policy programmes. It really is essential for the UK Government, if possible, to adhere to the June 2005 date with Luxembourg for the deadline of the political agreement on future financing. That will add considerable practical benefits for the UK in its own presidency period.
	By the way, does the Minister expect the full agreement on the Capital Requirements Directive (CAD 3) under the Financial Services Action Plan to be achieved under the UK presidency? If time were available, I would ask many other questions but I shall not inflict those on the House except, in broader geo-strategic terms, to express the hope that, after President Bush's recent visit to the European institutions, countries and peoples, the relationship is now based on total equality between the two entities—the EU and the US—and it is not simply the case that we are taking on some of its suggestions.
	I suppose that, leaving aside the vital work of EU3 vis-à-vis Iran, the Council of Ministers' foreign policy agenda in terms of broad strategic objectives can be expressed in the following areas: the repair work on EU-US relations, which I have just mentioned; standing up to Russia and stabilising the Balkans; energetic work on the Middle East roadmap; the fulfilment of the millennium goals; new links with the People's Republic of China; and achieving effective true multilateralism—not an American hegemony—in the new United Nations.
	With the Union's new confidence, I believe that those are all realistic aims. I also hope very much that the work needed on the security strategy of the Union and WMD will be carried forward energetically. It must surely be important for the European Union to develop these themes. It must do so as a result of the Thessaloniki decisions. I feel that it needs to avoid unnecessary duplication by liaison with NATO and the UN, but also, a little paradoxically, that it needs to ensure that the budget resources are put up when the decisions are taken forward. Surely it will be essential to resolve the ongoing struggle by the High Representative's WMD spokesperson against the Commission's own WMD unit, which is starved of funds for any serious work.
	I could, of course, have gone on with a vast list of points, but relative brevity, even with major matters of policy, remains the highest virtue. After all, there is presumably always the next opportunity, especially in a sensibly administered House such as this one. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Union, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for calling attention to this important issue.
	The opportunity for shaping the agenda during a presidency is often trumpeted but, in reality, it is limited. However, it is a great opportunity to highlight European issues that are of specific importance to the UK and to raise general awareness about the EU and its policies. The presidency must rightly work within the framework of the EU's 2004-06 multi-annual strategic programme and the more recently agreed strategic objectives for 2005-09, both of which it helped to shape with its partners in the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Such continuity was important for a Union of 15 member states, but it is absolutely essential for an efficient and effective Union of 25. That is why I welcome the provisions in the constitutional treaty for a full-time President of the European Council and teams of three member countries holding the presidency collectively for periods of 18 months.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, pointed out, the list of issues to be addressed by the UK presidency is vast, and so I will focus on just three. First, there is the need to put Europe back on the path to long-term prosperity. The European Union is unique, and it has been and is a huge success. It has enabled an increasing number of countries to work together in partnership to bring peace, stability and prosperity to its citizens. However, enlargement, globalisation and demographics have brought new economic challenges. If we do not rise to meet these challenges, we will not be able to maintain our distinctive model of society, with its welfare, education and health systems. The status quo is not an option if we want greater social justice.
	The high expectations raised when the heads of state and Government of the European Union met in Lisbon in 2000 and launched a series of ambitious reforms at national and European level have not been properly met. In many ways, the reform package was too complex. The Commission blamed member states for lack of progress and commitment to the process. Member states blamed the Commission. The reality is that political leadership and commitment are needed at both European and national levels to bring about higher growth.
	Following the excellent Kok report, both the Commission and the Council have reassessed the Lisbon strategy, and the spring European Council will agree a new partnership for growth and jobs. Launched under the current Luxembourg presidency, it is the UK presidency that must drive this new strategy to unleash Europe's real economic potential. Economic reform and boosting jobs and growth throughout the EU are absolute necessities if we are to remain competitive in the face of ever-increasing challenges from countries such as India and China, as well as to improve people's lives and well-being in an ageing society. Our economic prosperity is also, I believe, inextricably linked with the stability of the Union that the recent enlargement has helped to consolidate.
	Thanks to the Chancellor's effective economic management, Britain is an economic success, with solid growth, low inflation and high levels of employment. The UK, during its presidency, is well placed to lead on a European growth plan. As we do so, however, we should heed and learn from the often-ignored economic successes of some of our partners. No member state has all of the solutions, and we have to learn from each other's best and worst practice. Germany has sluggish growth and very high unemployment, partially due to the economic burden it has carried since reunification. According to the OECD, however, when it comes to measuring productivity, 11 of the pre-enlargement 15 member states have higher productivity levels than we do.
	Urgent action is needed in each of our 25 countries in order to halt economic decline and to ensure sustainable economic development. I know that the Government well understood the importance of the Lisbon agenda, and were frustrated by its lack of progress. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could assure me that, during the UK presidency, the Government will do their utmost to pursue the new growth plan, encouraging all member states and the European Commission to co-operate more closely in delivering the often painful reforms. Individual member countries cannot reach their full economic potential unless they are part of a successful Union; yet the success of the Union depends on the economic success of each member state. The sum of the whole is certainly greater than the sum of the parts.
	My second issue is an integral part of the growth plan: the need to improve European and national regulation. This is essential for business and consequently for growth and prosperity. I am sure we would all agree that the existing regulatory environment in the EU is overly complex; that the cumulative impact of individual pieces of legislation is costly; and that sometimes the impact of draft EU legislation is not properly assessed. I believe that the situation has improved in the past couple of years, but I certainly welcome the new better-regulation package proposed by the European Commission. Most importantly, this will simplify regulation and it will also cut red tape by withdrawing and/or amending EU laws which prove to be excessive.
	I trust that my noble friend can assure me that this particular proposal will be processed speedily and implemented. Excessive and obsolete laws are not just bad for business: they are bad for the reputation of the European Union. I hope that, under the UK presidency, efforts will also be made to find a methodology for impact assessments that is acceptable to both the Commission and the Council. The introduction by the Commission a couple of years ago of an impact assessment for all draft proposals was a huge step forward. Unfortunately, the Council does not fully agree with the methodology used, and consequently questions the results of each impact assessment. An agreed common methodology would be more efficient and would instil confidence in the process.
	As a realistic but very committed European, I acknowledge that some European legislation has been excessive; but I take this opportunity to remind those constant critics of the so-called "Brussels red tape" of three things. If the internal market is to function effectively and provide the much-needed and desired level playing field for business, there have to be common standards, and therefore rules and regulations that are common to all. It is much easier for a business selling goods to other parts of the EU to grapple with one set of rules rather than a separate set of rules for each country with which it trades.
	I know that the Government are mindful of the problem of gold-plating, but it still exists. It is not just a British disease, although we suffer more than most. Shortly before the Dutch presidency, I had a meeting with the head of the Dutch CBI, who spoke of horses designed in Brussels that had turned into camels before they reached the streets of The Hague. It is extremely important to have an open and transparent transposition process. I welcome the fact that most government departments now usually produce transposition notes when implementing legislation, but I regret that too often they are not available or accessible to the public.
	Finally, I turn to an issue about which I feel passionately—democratic engagement. I recently made the case for providing people with more information about the system of governance in which they live, in order to enable them to participate in that system. I now extend that case to information about the European Union and its policies. The European information gap is legendary. It is regrettable at any time but, as we near the campaign for a referendum on the constitutional treaty, it is one that has to be met. Before people vote in a referendum, there must be an informed debate; but that debate can take place only if people have access to the facts about the European Union as well as facts about the constitutional treaty.
	I am not suggesting a propaganda exercise. That would be both wrong and counterproductive. However, people need factual information. Indeed, they have a right to factual information about what the EU is, what it does, why it does it, and how it affects their lives. The UK presidency of the European Union provides an excellent opportunity for the Government to meet their duty of explanation, and I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that this opportunity will not be lost.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for initiating a debate on this important subject. As he and other noble Lords have said, there is a whole range of subjects that we could consider under this heading. I am especially anxious that the UK should use its presidency to enthuse and motivate others with its commitment to development.
	It may be suggested by some that the role of the presidency is simply to try to create a consensus among European countries. Of course, that is an important part, but the role of the presidency is also to set a lead. I am very much looking forward to the United Kingdom setting a lead in the area of development.
	I briefly mention the question of debt, because that really belongs to the G7 group of countries—of which, of course, the UK will also be president. The United Kingdom has agreed to remit 100 percent of debt servicing from 2005-15 and it could persuade other countries in the European Union, such as France, which is rather resistant to it, or the Netherlands, which is resistant to the idea of revaluing IMF gold, to follow its own example and commitment in that area.
	There is another aspect of that which is not directly related, but is of particular concern to many non-governmental organisations. That is the way in which so many stolen assets, especially from African countries, have found their way into banks. Can the UK use its presidency to encourage the European Parliament to insist on the co-operation of the banks in investigating those stolen assets? I have been very brief on debt, but I hope that that brevity will not be taken as any indication that I regard remission of debt, especially for the poorest countries of the world, as anything other than a priority.
	Secondly, equally briefly, on aid, we need more and better aid. The figure of 0.7 per cent of gross national income has been around for many decades now. The European Union might commit itself to achieving that target by 2010 as a collective entity. Why is it that, 35 years after that figure was first put forward, countries are still setting such low targets? Better aid is indicated by greater coherence and consistency between policies on development and trade and policies related to aid. It is no good putting in a lot of aid if trade relationships are fundamentally flawed.
	The aid needs to be well targeted. It has been suggested that at least 20 per cent of aid needs to go directly on the social services of developing countries, but most countries are putting in less than 10 per cent in that area. Many countries tie their aid to reciprocal arrangements whereby that country is forced to buy goods and services from the country that is giving the aid. The United Kingdom is not an offender in that respect: all its aid is untied; but Italy, for example, has 92 per cent of its aid tied and a good number of other countries have 50 per cent or more.
	My next point is not directly related but still crucial. We know that in many of those countries there is endemic conflict involving arms. How do the arms get there? Do we have an effective arms treaty at the moment and effective regulation of arms brokers? I suggest that we do not and that that may be another area where the United Kingdom could use its presidency to good effect.
	I do not regard aid as anything less than a priority, but I want to spend a few minutes on trade. In an ideal world there would be no need to remit debts and to give massive amounts of aid because people would be able to trade with mutuality: mutual giving and receiving. We need to remind ourselves that the European Union is responsible for 20 per cent of the world's trade. It is the biggest importer and the second biggest exporter of agricultural goods. That is a huge share of the world's market and much of it is in relation to the developing world.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, emphasised, the common agricultural policy is a continuing scandal. There is no other word for the way in which food is dumped on other countries and agricultural products are so subsidised that other countries' economies are ruined. We all know the example of the tomato industry and rice products in Ghana. Markets and industries are decimated because of heavily subsidised goods from outside.
	The aid agencies are particularly concerned at present about the economic partnership agreements. It has been suggested that they will involve a great deal of liberalisation of trade and that 90 per cent of all trade should be fully liberalised within 10 years. Yet it is also recognised that that may not be in the best interests of the developing countries, not least because total liberalisation, particularly if conditionality of other kinds is attached to it, has been shown to be not in the best interests of those developing countries.
	I should like to spend two or three minutes of my time on the economic partnership agreements. Although the Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, has suggested that we may have to reconsider the economic partnership agreements and that there may be other ways of engaging in trade relationships, there are still a number of concerns. There are concerns about the nature of the negotiations; for example, that they are being undertaken by the department dealing with trade rather than the department dealing with development.
	It is unclear where the trade department's expertise in development comes from and whether the developmental aspects of the EPAs are receiving due scrutiny by development officials at European Union and member country level. There is an imbalance between the negotiating partners and the fact that no public reassurances have been given to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that rejection of the EPA proposals will not impact on future EC aid flows.
	There is a lack of any specific clearly defined alternatives to the economic partnership agreements despite the commitment to offer such alternatives; and the Commission is unwilling to provide well-defined alternatives in the immediate future. So there are concerns about the negotiations. There are also concerns about the content of the proposals.
	First, there is the presence of the so-called Singapore issues—trade facilitation; competition; investment; and government procurement—in the EPA negotiations despite their having been rejected at Cancun in the WTO negotiations and the extension of the proposals beyond the terms rejected at the WTO.
	Secondly, there is the demand for reciprocity: the opening of ACP markets to EU goods in exchange for the opening of the EU market. As I have indicated, there is a great deal of concern that the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be compelled to liberalise their markets leaving them open to floods of EU goods with which they cannot hope to compete.
	Thirdly, there is the inability of the poor countries to offset the loss of tariff revenues that result from the lowering of the tariffs. There are issues of debt and aid, but I have focused on trade and trade justice: making trade work for the poor; giving poor farmers in developing countries a chance to trade their way out of poverty by immediately eliminating all EU export subsidies; significantly reducing trade distorting subsidies; supporting the right of developing countries to protect their sensitive agricultural sectors; and ensuring that market access concessions work in favour of the poor.
	Finally, the EU should stop pursuing potentially damaging economic partnership agreements in their current form with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. They need changing in order that the needs of those countries can be taken into account. I believe that the presidency of the European Union at this time offers a huge opportunity for the commitment and enthusiasm in this area shared by so many in this country to be shared also with other countries in the European Union.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I too would like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for his initiative in giving us this opportunity to debate the forthcoming British presidency this afternoon.
	Although I am not going to talk about development, I particularly appreciated the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. It reminded me that when I left the Ministry of Overseas Development where I was a junior Minister in 1979 we were closer to achieving our 0.7 per cent target than we are today. I have to say—not being too party political—that we went a long way down during the previous administration and we are working our way back up, but it shows how seriously we have been remiss as regards an obligation that we accepted so many years ago.
	The presidency, which we will occupy the second half of this year, is important. One of the things that we have to avoid is creating too high an expectation of what can be achieved by our leadership in six months. All political leaders make the mistake, which we have to resist during our presidency, of claiming that they can do so much by leading from the front and being at the heart of Europe.
	The pattern for the presidency is already set and fixed. We have only to read paragraph 2 of the February 2005 White Paper to see how precisely it is fixed in the form of an increasingly rolling multi-annual programme. So let us not hear too much from the Government about leading Europe; perhaps a little more about collegiality and the importance of working together.
	That does not mean that the Government should not have clear aims and objectives of things that they want to do. The major aims and themes for the presidency will include issues, such as security, prosperity and sustainability. From that important agenda, if we are to do anything by way of leadership, we need to create the domestic climate in which we can persuade the British people to face up to two decisions that they will be obligated to make—one perhaps a little more closely than the other.
	We will have to face the imperative of making a decision in a referendum on the constitutional treaty and, at some other stage, a decision in a referendum on our membership of the euro. Based on the common agenda that we have with our European partners in relation to security, prosperity and sustainability, we should use that as the springboard for domestic political activity to persuade the electorate to the right frame of mind in which they can meaningfully participate in those referenda.
	First, as regards the referendum on the constitutional treaty, we must show that this is a fairly limiting treaty. It is a defining treaty that is based on a concept of conferred competences. We have to show that we have a European Union that does not have any autonomous competence of its own. It only has competence in so far as the sovereign decision of sovereign member states has transferred that competence to the union. Any competence not so transferred remains with the nation state. So we have a constitutional treaty which demonstrates that and defines what we should do together, but, at the same time, underpins the role of the national state and enhances the role of national parliaments by, for example, the proposals that are made in relation to subsidiarity.
	Therefore, during our presidency, we must use the opportunity to show that there is no greatly increased power to the centre and that the Tory argument about "a state called Europe" is not merely wrong, but is conceptually nonsensical. I hope that during the British presidency we will find some dormant, no longer useful or relevant directive and get it repealed. That would have enormous symbolic significance. There must be something in the 80,000 page acquis communautaire that is no longer of use to man or beast: get rid of one and that will be a major British achievement in the presidency, which shows that not all decisions permanently reside there.
	Secondly, as I said, shortly after, at some time, we will have to face the matter of a euro referendum. Let us not forget that the Government are committed in principle to join a successful single currency. It is subject only to those economic tests. We have got, I believe, only a subjective decision to get over. But, without prejudice to the economic tests, during our presidency the Government must start more urgently, more systematically and more directly to spell out the benefits of euro membership.
	We all know the arguments. We have been over them so many times before: for example, reduced transactional costs in circumstances where more than 55 per cent of our exports go to the European Union; greater certainty about export contract pricing; and more transparency concerning trans-national comparisons of price. All of those things have to be spelt out, and the presidency gives us the platform to do that domestically. Forget about taking the lead in Europe: take the lead of the argument at home. Then there is the opportunity to win two referenda.
	The presidency will require us to do other things, of course. One of the items on the agenda is future enlargements, including Romania and Bulgaria in the relatively short term; Turkey, a bit further down the line; and others further downstream—former Yugoslavia and even the Ukraine. People have aspirations. Future enlargements will be on our political agenda during the British presidency, not for determination but for discussion.
	I make a special plea that during our presidency we should be particularly concerned about external borders and their security. I am one of the few freaks in the Labour Party—I say to the Minister—who walks around with a pledge card in his pocket. My pledge card for the next election says, "Your country's borders protected". But I say to my noble friend that you cannot do that unless you have secured the external borders of the European Union.
	When we have an enlargement agenda that could wind up with us having common borders with Syria, Iran, Iraq, Belarus and Russia, we have to be a little bit more serious in some of the work that we do on securing external borders than perhaps we have been in the past. I say that particularly in the context of the debate that we have had during the past couple of days. Security on our external borders is imperative, not only for tax and economic security, not only for illegal immigration, including people trafficking, but also for arms and drugs trafficking and their relationship to terrorism.
	My final point relates to a major internal issue—finance—which will be seriously on the agenda. We will have to get to grips, because it will not happen under the Luxembourg presidency, with the next financial perspective for the years 2007-2013. The Commission ambition is for a perspective based on 1.26 per cent of community gross national income. We, together with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, are convinced about the merits of the argument for a 1 per cent of EU gross national income.
	In the context of that, there will also have to be an own-resources decision. The Commission has quite clear proposals for a medium-term European Union tax. To my noble friend, I say that I hope we have his clear assurance that that will be resisted. Such a tax, as all own-resources decisions, will require unanimity. We expect a budget based on 1 per cent. Anything else needs to be resisted.
	Horse trading based on the idea of surrender of the United Kingdom rebate in whole or in part should also be resisted. That is not because we want anything, or everything, for ourselves, but because there is a better way of getting rid of the British rebate; namely, get rid of the maldistribution of resources from the common agricultural policy. Mathematically, the need for a rebate then works itself out of the system.
	I give my noble friend a challenging agenda where we can be at the heart of decision making, but leading the British people to circumstances in which we can get a majority in the necessary referenda.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, we have been much entertained by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. Of course, I agree with him very much on his final remarks and will come back to that. I am peculiarly and particularly pleased to speak in a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Dykes. Aeons ago, even before sunset, I was, for about a decade, the Liberal Party spokesman on Europe in the other place. We had endless debates—I remember Maastricht, that merry occasion—and I made endless speeches. Usually, facing me, smiling beatifically, was the face of the good Lord Dykes who, at that time, was misplaced within the Conservative Party. He has now seen the light—the sunrise—and he is clearly a happier person. It was awfully interesting when I used to make pro-European comments, which I did frequently, and he would smile or nod. Immediately the people all round him would glare blackly at him. I felt that he was almost certainly due for a row from the Whips when the debate was over.
	I am a completely unrepentant federalist. I know that the F-word is banned—even within the Liberal Democrats these days. I was a federalist not only before the United Kingdom accession in 1973, but prior to 1957 and the Treat of Rome. I was never affected by the strange view of the Thatcher and Major years that somehow federalism was a centralising concept—it never was and never has been. That is why successive British governments introduced federal systems into their colonies as they shed them—and into Germany, for that matter. So the dream of an economically and politically united Europe, which continued to rejoice in its cultural and linguistic diversity, and which inspired me in the 1950s, still holds me in thrall. As somebody said, "If you don't have ideals you will never achieve anything".
	There are five issues that I wish to touch on briefly. First, I refer to the constitution. We owe both the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan, a great debt. The Eurosceptics appear to have fled the battlefield. I know them fairly well; I know the sound of their voices.

Lord Russell-Johnston: Fear not, my friend.
	The constitution is portrayed by the sceptics as a great threat to our national independence. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, rightly said, that is rubbish. From a federal point of view, I could say that the constitution is timid, hyper-cautious and not forward looking, but, as a threat to the nation state, it is about as threatening as a mouse in the Albert Hall. That is nonsense.
	One of its other shortcomings—I could develop the point considerably, but I shall not—is the failure to deal with the issue of devolution. As we are slowly knitting together in Europe, the individual nation states are devolving at the same time. Within the United Kingdom, we have devolved to Wales and Scotland, and efforts are being made to find something suitable within England. The same is happening in France and Italy. Germany already has a federal system. There is no developed way of responding to that at a European level.
	My second point refers to the rebate. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that it has to do with the CAP. We should remember that Mrs Thatcher got the rebate because our colleagues in the European Union accepted that the working out of the CAP meant that we were unfairly treated financially. In approaching the matter now, the Government should not argue on defending a British advantage, but on what is a fair way of doing things. We are now a bigger European Union, with a number of countries that are poorer than us having joined. They deserve the solidarity of European Union support.
	Thirdly, I refer to human rights. The European Union's most important exports to the world are human rights and the setting of democratic standards. I ask that the Government oppose completely the sale of arms to China. The huge vote against such a proposal in the European Parliament towards the end of last year cannot and should not be ignored. It is not simply because Tiananmen Square was a long time ago, or even that not very much contrition has ever been shown for what happened then; it is the present situation of Taiwan, which mainland China continually threatens, and which is developing democracy in a way that we should admire.
	We should also be quite direct with Russia. A couple of days ago, Alsan Mashkadov was shot and killed. When I was president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, I spoke to him a couple of times. I was always persuaded that he was a separatist leader, not a terrorist in the sense of targeting civilians, such as Basayev, for example. After all, one remembers the Russian's promise to work for a peaceful solution when joining the Council of Europe, which it promptly broke.
	I have two final points. First, the WEU is being knitted into the European Union, and that process is taking a little while. In particular, there is the question of how national Parliaments, such as ours, will have the continued opportunity to comment directly on defence matters that are decided at the European level. Again, that decision process is slow.
	The simplest way would be to make the existing Western European Union Assembly a European Union institution. That would be a simple and pragmatic way of enabling national Parliaments to continue to give advice—after all, it is only an advisory assembly. I do not say "only" pejoratively. It is important to maintain that conduit.
	Finally, there is a continued and ongoing dispute that the extension of the European Union threatens the existence of the Council of Europe. I do not think that it should do so. The two each have a place well into the future, and the Government should make it clear when they take over the chairmanship of the European Union that they do not wish the removal of the Council of Europe. Its work in democracy building—especially in the countries outside the European Union, but not exclusively so—remains of the greatest importance.

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for calling attention to the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of the European Union.
	I feel somewhat isolated but undeterred in my views. Shortly following the presidency, we shall have in 2006 the referendum on the EU constitution. One hopes, therefore, that the UK presidency will seek to clarify a number of issues so that the electorate can have a clearer idea what they are voting about, in view of the conflicting opinions of European leaders.
	I note that the Prime Minister's colleague in the other place, who is in charge of the negotiations, considers the constitution to be a tidying-up exercise. Others may differ from that definition. I see no point in contesting the definition, but let us consider what is being tidied up.
	Jean-Luc Dehaene, vice-chairman of the convention which drew up the document, in June 2004, said that,
	"the Maastricht treaty with its social laws and single currency had delivered a socio-economic Europe"—
	whatever that is—
	"in the early 1990s, now the constitution was delivering a political Europe which would need to be further thrashed out in the years ahead".
	Our Prime Minister stated that the text agreed in Brussels demolished myths about Britain surrendering authority to a federal super state. It will have its own Full-time President, Foreign Minister, diplomatic service; its own anthem, flag and Europe day.
	Germany's Minister for Europe said last week,
	"the constitution is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe".
	The Spanish Foreign Minister said:
	"We are witnessing the last remnants of national politics. We must now give up sovereignty in the dual areas of foreign affairs and defence".
	The Spanish Prime Minister stated last week that the EU constitution would create a diplomatic service for the EU which would eventually replace national embassies. This is tidying up, according to our Government.
	The Prime Minister's former Europe adviser, Mr Liddle—now adviser to the European Commissioner, Mr Mandelson—said:
	"the constitutional treaty enshrines the transformation of Europe from a single market to a political union".
	He also said this week that the Prime Minister should be more honest with voters and admit that Britain was handing more and more power to Brussels and that the constitution was a political project and not a free trade society. Mr Monnet would have been delighted with these remarks.
	Our Foreign Secretary says that the constitution marks an end of the transfer of British sovereignty to Brussels; thus far and no further. At least he admits it will and has taken place. But this, of course, ignores the general flexibility clause that allows the EU to adopt new powers not set out in the constitution at any time. There is also the power to set up a European public prosecutor.
	Our negotiators tabled 275 amendments and achieved 27 of them, but the Foreign Secretary said that we delivered on every one of our red lines. I assume these were not red lines. However, we lost out, for example, on the creation of a European mutual defence pact and a common asylum and immigration system.
	The new constitution gives more power to the European Parliament and a say over the €100 billion budget—if that is indeed the budget—but it does not identify any powers that might be returned to national governments, even though the European convention was specifically asked to do so.
	However, for the first time, a European treaty gives any member the right to withdraw from the European Union. This implies that the Union is a voluntary association of nation states. Also, if the EU as a whole cannot agree to do something, one-third or more of the member states can agree to do it on their own. National parliaments can vote down new proposals from the Commission if they think that it can be done better at a national level. If one-third reject, Brussels has to review the proposal. This, however, is valueless as Brussels can still go ahead if it wants to.
	The Prime Minister may boast that he has protected his lines on tax, defence and foreign policy, but we seem to have given way on practically everything else. Small wonder when you consider the views of other European leaders, which I have expressed.
	On the "Today" programme on 19 January 2005, at 7.14 a.m.—I was actually up and I heard it—the Prime Minister said:
	"Europe remains a nation".
	He then corrected it to,
	"Europe remains a union of nation states".
	His actual words were:
	"Europe remains a nation—uh, uh—a union of nation states".
	This sums it up. This is really more than a tidying-up exercise, but even the Prime Minister does not want to admit it.
	The White Paper issued in February 2005 touches on many aspects of the EU and contains some statistical information. It refers to applying the union rules effectively across the enlarged union—but what about the un-enlarged union? It states that the UK has complied with 70 per cent of the Lisbon directives, which is above the EU average of 58 per cent.
	Mr Wim Kok, the Dutch former Prime Minister, has said that urgent and serious action needs to be taken to meet the Lisbon targets. The stability and growth pact is more noted for its breaches than its compliance. We are to have an integrated life-long learning programme within the EU when in this country we cannot even agree on our domestic schools' examination schedule. We are to have even more legislation on gender equality and equal treatment. The list goes on.
	Much more emphasis should be placed during our presidency on what the member countries are expecting from the new constitution and on clarifying what their expectations and objectives are. They appear to be diametrically opposed to what our leading politicians seem to be telling us, sadly not for the first time. The objective of the founders of the EU was always political and economic unification. We need to recognise and admit that, unless we tackle this desire now, that is where we will end up. The Prime Minister should clarify the position during his presidency. Health and safety is yet another area where our negotiators agreed and then discovered that it invades every area of our lives.
	I very much hope that many of those in favour of even more political, social and economic integration in the EU, and those against, will be able to raise the level of the debate in the coming months from insults and generalisations to something more carefully thought through and presented. To describe Euro-sceptics as xenophobes, as the Trade Minister did last week, does not get us very far. We, like Mr Liddle, are seekers after the truth, and our presidency should be used to clarify these issues.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been in many ways a very odd debate. I miss the strength of the Euro-sceptics, who are so often a major part of what we have here. I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his particular contribution. The sense in which we have a deep suspicion of everything that foreigners "do to Britain" is a very important part of the British debate. It has been rather underplayed today. In a week in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has informed me that Christopher Booker wrote a very complimentary piece about me in the Sunday Telegraph, I miss their presence even more than usual.
	I also note the remarkably empty Conservative Benches. But I think that there is a different reason for that—the embarrassment of so many Conservative Members of this House at the current policy of their party on the European Union, which no doubt makes it easier for them to stay away from this as from a number of other debates.
	The development of the presidency over the past 30 years has been one of the most interesting things in the European Union. I think that my wife was the first person to write something on the development of the Council presidency, which was happily followed by a number of very enjoyable conferences in countries that were due to take the presidency in six months' time or whenever. I particularly remember a conference in Dublin just before the first Irish presidency, about which, as some noble Lords may remember, Henry Kissinger said that he could not conceive having to discuss transatlantic relations with the Irish Foreign Minister, of all people. Garrett FitzGerald then conducted an extremely successful Irish presidency and took us towards the whole development of the way in which national governments share this role.
	However, as a number of noble Lords have clearly said, the complexity of the presidency now is such that it would be entirely wrong for a national government to come in and attempt to hijack the agenda. As the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, have said, it is a multi-annual programme which has to be set well in advance of each government taking over. The pattern for the second semester of 2005 is already set.
	I am slightly puzzled that Her Majesty's Government have not taken more time to have a broader consultation on what they think the priorities should be. I recollect, 18 months ago, attending two conferences in the Netherlands in the run-up to the Dutch presidency in which the Dutch Government pulled in a number of people from other countries. It happens that those conferences were about Turkish entry and transatlantic relations. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government might have wanted to generate a sense of collective enterprise rather more actively and rather more openly than their executive dominance and secretive style allow.
	We can, however, hope that Ministers will lay particular emphasis on parts of the agenda—that they will attempt to narrow the gap between the grandiose rhetoric and the poor practical implementation which is one of the underlying weaknesses of the European Union; that they will engage in promoting a European Union-wide debate on what our shared priorities and choices should be; and that they will take this opportunity, as a number of noble Lords have said, to promote, at last, a more informed debate within the European Union.
	It has been one of the greatest disappointments, even failures, of this Labour Government that we have had no consistent or coherent British policy towards European institutions. We have had six Europe Ministers since 1997. I think that that is about as many changes as we have had in any other office. With our presidential style of government, we have a European policy when the Prime Minister is focusing on it; but, as was often said in Paris under the later years of President Mitterand, "When the President is not well, France does not have a foreign policy". I sometimes fear that, when the Prime Minister's mind is on transatlantic relations or on the Middle East, we do not have a coherent European policy.
	The position of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office on European matters has been rather unclear. The European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office has attempted to hold things together—with some disquiet, as we have heard, since his resignation, from the former head of that secretariat, Sir Stephen Wall. The efficiency of the machine cannot compensate for the weakness of political leadership. We need a coherent British presidency and a collective presidency—the sort of thing that cabinet government, if we still had cabinet government, might be able to provide.
	French presidencies of the European Union have, sadly, been among the most disastrous, often because the President and the Prime Minister could not entirely agree, as some noble Lords will remember happened at the Nice European Council. One could make a number of British comparisons with that.
	First, we need a much more coherent domestic debate. We need Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards to explain and to educate, and to use the British presidency to do that. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the most important way to lead is not to talk about leading on the Continent but to lead here and to use the presidency for that, and to explain that this is a collective enterprise, not one against 24, as it used to be one against 14. It is not a zero-sum game in which the language is "Britain wins" or "Britain loses".
	As to European priorities, it seems to me that there are a number that we should ask the Government to emphasise. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that breathing life into the role of national Parliaments which is promised in the new constitutional treaty, and about which the Prime Minister used to enthuse, is a very important matter and something that we could do. The British meeting of COSAC could become an opportunity for that.
	A number of us here are veterans of COSAC meetings. We bear the scars, have enjoyed the food and have been bored out of our minds by the poor content of the consultations. I am told by some that the meetings are getting a little bit better and a little bit more constructive. However, Her Majesty's Government could come forward to this Parliament with proposals on how we should be more actively and collectively engaged in the process of following European developments. Perhaps the Prime Minister or others could also address other Parliaments about how the strengthened role of national Parliaments could be developed.
	A number of Members have talked about the Lisbon agenda. I regret that our Chancellor so often talks about America as the land of enterprise and the Continent as offering security. The Lisbon agenda, after all, is about striking the right balance between enterprise and welfare—between enterprise and happiness, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, so often puts it—in which the American model is not the complete answer. But we have to find ways of making Europe and the European continent rather more open to competition. I hope that the Government will not shrink from robust criticism of the failings of others in this regard, in particular of the German Government, the Italians, the Greeks and the French.
	I strongly support again what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said about pushing for aviation taxes. My party is particularly convinced of the need for common policies on environmental matters. That clearly is something which we cannot do on our own as a national policy. I also strongly agree with him on the importance of taking further the five-year Hague programme. I think that there must be a couple of dozen of us who know what the five-year Hague programme is about. There is a good deal of room for public education on why anti-terrorism, trans-national crime, drug smuggling and people smuggling require more effective common European action in Britain's national interests.
	Above all, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will stress the importance of external relations and a common foreign policy as a higher priority for Europe. This has been the area where, most of all, there has been a gap between grandiloquent rhetoric and poor implementation and where our Prime Minister's major speeches on foreign policy have either been in Britain or in the United States rather than on the European continent. There is a great deal to do: our relations with Russia, redefining the relationship with the US, breathing new life into the Barcelona process, talking about democracy promotion and, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, making a more coherent approach to the developed world than we get from one bit of the Commission negotiating one set of issues and others negotiating others.
	Most of all, however, we should not oversell the British role or British singularity. European integration is a partnership based on shared interests. The British presidency should reflect that rather than the outdated English rhetoric of "us versus them".

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this important debate today. It is always a privilege to contribute to these impressive debates. I feel very humble replying from these Benches after a list of many well-informed and distinguished speakers, with understandably strong feelings and strongly-held opinions, as we heard in the detailed speech of my noble friend Lord Stevens regarding the constitution, which I shall not touch on today.
	With the parallel presidency of both the European Union and the G8 falling to the UK, 2005 offers us a unique opportunity to drive forward the reforms in both institutions that are vital if those institutions are successfully to adapt to the changing geopolitical climate, the demands of the 21st century and the consequences of enlargement. I am sorry that so many noble Lords on the Benches opposite seem to think the Government will not be able to achieve much during the British presidency. I well remember a successful presidency under Prime Minister John Major and the Conservatives.
	The Government seem to have failed to recognise the challenges that face the European Union.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I will be very quick. The noble Baroness refers to the successful presidency under John Major. Was that not the Edinburgh summit, when the British Government conceded that not only should the European Parliament meet in Brussels, but Strasbourg should also be kept going, which is one the biggest waste factors we have seen?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I was talking about regulations, not currencies. That is a different argument, like the one I will have later with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
	It cannot be disputed that the pursuit of common-sense reform designed to promote deregulation is an urgent priority if the EU is to meet today's challenges. I beg to differ here with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on one point in her very good speech. We were always brought up on mutual recognition rather than straight harmonisation for success in the market. I would add to this list the need for the growth and stability pact to be adhered to by all its member countries, large and small alike, if it is to mean anything.
	Enlargement continues to place strains upon the EU's finances, largely due to the workings of the structural and regional funds distribution system, the common agricultural policy and the failure to achieve long-term reform. Is it not time the Government realised that what we have been saying for so long is correct? This could be our moment, while holding the presidency, to revisit and radically reform the basis of the EU finance as well as the CAP, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his wide-ranging speech that also covered aid, trade and, importantly, trade justice.
	I wonder whether, at this late stage, I might add a small idea arising from our recent debates in this House regarding the Immunities and Privileges Bill—soon to be debated in the other place—especially as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was so helpful during the Bill's passage. This was mentioned too by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Our debates stressed the need to support the necessary reforms so that this outdated treaty, drawn up in the 1960s in a different geopolitical climate, should be placed on the agenda for discussion for reform during our presidency.
	I support the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for drawing attention to the election in Togo, and the plight of the brave and remarkable man, Gill Olympio. In Europe, we find ourselves and our continent at a crossroads. With the presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom has a unique opportunity to shape its future direction and drive forward reform. The only way in which that can be achieved is by distributing serious information and involving as many people from as many walks of life as possible.
	This reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, which goes, "Tell me and I'll forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I'll understand". We hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that this Government will ensure that 2005 is the year of genuine understanding and EU reform, thus creating a successful partnership for the 21st century.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in summary, the regulations implement increases in the level of fees for applications for planning permission and deemed planning permission which, if approved by the House, will come into effect on the 1 April this year.
	The fee increases proposed in the regulations are in line with the long-standing government policy that the overall income generated by planning application fees should cover the estimated costs incurred in handling those applications.
	The last time that there was a general increase in fees was in 2002 and before that in 1997. The 2002 increase followed a study commissioned by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That study identified a 14 per cent increase as the minimum necessary increase based on the information of costs available at that time.
	Following that, my department instituted a comprehensive survey of planning costs in all local authorities in England. We concluded that the annual cost of the planning system is around £204 million higher than previous research had shown. The difference was due to the failure of earlier studies to identify and include all overhead costs. The 2003 research found that fees would need to increase by an average 39 per cent in order to achieve near full cost recovery. Somewhat surprisingly, my department consulted on a fee increase of 17 per cent in 2004. Many people said, "That's not enough", and, therefore, we decided to re-consult in December on proposals to increase fees to near cost recovery.
	The Government therefore propose to increase fees by approximately 39 per cent, so that in aggregate across England, the income generated by planning application fees should better reflect the estimated costs incurred by local planning authorities.
	Increases will be across the board with proportionately higher increases for larger developments, where the planning fee is furthest from the cost of handling the application. We do not believe that these increases will act as a deterrent to development, as planning fees are a small proportion of the development costs.
	The increase in fees proposed in the draft regulations now before the House keeps fees at the lower end of the scale at modest levels, while introducing proportionately higher fees for the larger applications. I must stress that we expect local authorities to match this increase with a better service on handling planning applications. The fee increases should help to sustain improvements in performance of local authorities and complement the positive effects of the planning delivery grant. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee] [11th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I shall speak to both codes and start by declaring an interest. It was a member of the board of the Audit Commission when the codes were drawn up, which would make it very difficult for me to offer any criticism of them, were I inclined to do so.
	It is worth observing at the start that discussion about the Audit Commission and its role usually centres on inspection through comprehensive performance assessment or the reports that it produces but, in fact, the bulk of the work is the day-to-day audit process, which is little spoken of. There is sometimes a danger in debate about regulation that we lose sight of the fact that much of the work done by the Audit Commission is in the form of external audit.
	I think that we would all agree that all services and organisations need some form of external audit. In some, it needs to be more closely monitored because the risk is greater. In some areas, the risk is great because the organisation itself is weak; and in others, the risk is inherent in the service. By its nature, the failure of an NHS body can have catastrophic results for the people that it serves.
	Therefore, from these Benches, we welcome the principles of strategic regulation that underpin the approach, because audit that is risk-based and proportionate is essential. We certainly want clear links with the inspection regime. Linking audit and inspection for local government ought not to be too difficult, because they are both under the auspices of the Audit Commission. It is rather different in the health sector, where different bodies do both jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also makes a powerful point about the audit of partnership bodies.
	Finally, if the audits are to be meaningful to the public, it is essential that they are as understandable and free of jargon as possible. We support the approach of the Audit Commission in trying to ensure that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I think that somewhere along the line, I should have declared an interest both as a member of local authority and chairman of a health trust.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I should pay tribute to the work that both undertook during the passage of the Energy Bill. This evening feels like a reunion.
	I shall start with some practical matters. First, the definition is found in Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989, which was inserted into the Utilities Act 2000. It was further provided in Section 53A of the Electricity Act, and it is the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I am happy to say that, even without the benefit of notes, reading the order last night I found on page 31—at the top, in the Explanatory Memorandum—that it does explicitly say that it is the,
	"Gas and Electricity Markets Authority ('the Authority')".
	That is the authority as it is referred to throughout the order. I hope that clarifies the position.
	Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the geographical extent of the order.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is quite right. The Explanatory Memorandum is not part of the order. The two Acts I referred to provide the definition. With so many other words in the order perhaps it would not have suffered greatly if it had had those words repeated as well. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to how it is used in the order, and its provenance is the legislative elements that I mentioned.
	As I have said, the order applies only to suppliers who supply electricity in England and Wales. So the order is accurate in referring to them. I also refer noble Lords to another of the documents which I painstakingly went through, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Renewables Obligation Order 2005. In two paragraphs, it sets out these matters. The article of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Energy Order 2003, as amended by the Energy Act and so on, going through the string of provenance issues, covering Northern Ireland, links Northern Ireland to the order, in as much as it is in scope for those purposes. I understand that that legislation was completed in February. I do not have the exact date, for which I apologise.
	In the case of Scotland, following the Executive devolution of the relevant powers, a process is being gone through a process which will be completed on 24 March. It is not completed yet, but we do not at present have any reason to think that it will not be, in terms which put the final bits of the jigsaw together.
	In a document that was as long and as complicated, I was also looking for the bits of the jigsaw. I am not sure whether it is a relief that it was not longer or that it should have been there. Separate orders, in other words, along similar lines have or will be provided. It is not nitpicking in any way to ensure that we have got all of this right.
	I turn to the points that noble Lords have made. First, on consistency with targets, what is the relevance of the dates 2016 and 2027? The forthcoming renewables obligation review will consider the future levels of the obligation beyond 2015. The point in going to 2015, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, is of course a matter of confidence that people can feel in the market. The Government's target, however, must be consistently looked at. The 2050 target is a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, not a 60 per cent increase in renewables. Those two may not be exactly the same thing. One may be arrived at slightly differently from the other. In any event, the review will take place.
	I turn to the question of wind capacity and the reliance on it, and how it meshes with spare capacity at times when that is needed, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. While wind is obviously intermittent, we nonetheless need to keep in proportion the nature of the problem that intermittency might. Spare capacity, as the noble Lord said, is maintained anyway, to cope with any breakdown of plant.
	We believe that no significant additional spare capacity would be needed to meet the 10 per cent target. I expect that we will talk about many sources of energy as we go forward, but we will talk a good deal more about waves, tidal movement, biomass, cleaner coal, and carbon capture—all of those things to which we are committed and about which we have had many good debates.
	I turn to the interesting example of Woking, just to clarify its position . Woking is an unlicensed network, and so Woking council is not subject to the obligation, nor does it benefit from ROCS from the electricity that it generates. In the RO review, we are looking at ways to improve access to ROCS for the micro generators—a point that I made in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in his Renewable Energy Bill. It is plainly right that we should look at micro generation in a way which is more imaginative. I think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, illustrate that greater sense of imagination about the flow backwards and forwards that will be needed.
	The final point, I think, is about the NFFO contracts and the money being generated. A surplus has accumulated. It continues to do so from sales of electricity under the NFFO contracts and auction proceeds of electricity and ROCS under those contracts. Noble Lords will be aware—we went over this in Committee in the Sustainable Energy Bill as well—that the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 has made provision for £60 million of the surplus to be spent on renewable energy projects. No decisions have as yet been taken on the use of the remainder of the fund in England and Wales, apart from the need to keep £30 million in reserve. Noble Lords will be familiar with that answer from a previous occasion. I have just to acknowledge today that we are no further forward than when I had the last opportunity to deal with that issue. It is public money. It should be lodged in the Consolidated Fund. But no decision has been taken on how it should be used.
	I turn briefly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I agree very strongly with her that we may have a model for sustainability here that will be of interest to other partners in the European Union. I dearly hope so. I think that it may be the case—I do not want to make a commitment that would be out of place, but I think it may be the case—that, as part of our presidency when we are dealing with climate change issues and so on, it may very well be an opportunity to see that discussion progress. I welcome her insertion of that thought into not just this evening's debate but the work that we carry forward.
	I think that it is too early to make any judgment about whether Ofgem as an administrator and as regulator will find that its roles are in any kind of conflict. I can only say that any new machinery should always be looked at and that any reviewing process should take account of that. But I think at this stage—and I do not mean this as any disparagement at all of the point made—that it would be overly bureaucratic to create two organisations. We are quite good at creating organisations, but I suspect that we are not so good at getting rid of them.

Bill returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to but with amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reasons be printed.
	Correction
	In col. 726 on Tuesday 8 March, the contribution of the Lord Roper was misattributed to the Lord McNally.
	House adjourned at nine o'clock.